Healthcare Lawsuit Response

Case 2:10-cv-00076-KS-MTP Document 20 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 95
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
HATTIESBURG DIVISION
LT. GOV. PHIL BRYANT, in his

private and individual capacity, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated
RYAN S. WALTERS,
MICHAEL E. SHOTWELL and
RICHARD A. CONRAD, ET AL., on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated PLAINTIFFS
VS. NO.2:10-cv-76
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official

capacity as Attorney General of the United
States; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official
capacity as the Secretary of the United States
Department of Health and Human Services;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
THE TREASURY; TIMOTHY F.
GEITHNER, in his official capacity as the
Secretary of the United States Department
of the Treasury; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; and HILDA
L. SOLIS, in her official capacity as Secretary
of the United States Department of Labor DEFENDANTS
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION. .................................................................................................................. 1
II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE,

AND THEIR CHALLENGE IS RIPE. ........................................................................................... 4
i
A. Petitioners have standing. ................................................................................................. 4
B. The individual mandate=s future effective date, which is definite, does not deprive
Petitioners of standing or violate the requirement of ripeness. ................................................... 6
C. Defendants' own research about what the future will hold disproves their assertion that
the threat plaintiffs face is "imaginary or speculative." .............................................................. 8
D. Petitioners= claims challenging the individual mandate are ripe. ................................... 10
III. The Anti-Injunction Act does not apply and therefore does not deprive Petitioners of
standing. ........................................................................................................................................ 12
IV. THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE EXCEEDS CONGRESS=S POWERS AND VIOLATES

THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS AND CORE PRINCIPLES OF
FEDERALISM. ........................................................................................................................... 20
A. Every Act of Congress Must Have a Constitutional Source. ......................................... 22
B. The individual mandate is impermissible under the Commerce Clause. ....................... 24
C. Congress=s Commerce power does not reach inactivity. ................................................ 29
D. The individual mandate does not regulate commerce, it compels commerce. ............... 32
V. THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS NOT A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF THE

CONSTITUTION=S NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE. .................................................. 35
A. The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent,
and the Necessary and Proper Clause does not create this power in and of itself. ................... 35
B. The individual mandate fails under the Comstock factors. ............................................ 37
VI. THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER THE TAXING AND

SPENDING CLAUSE. ................................................................................................................. 46
A. Congress did not purport to pass the individual mandate pursuant to the Constitution=s
taxing power.............................................................................................................................. 46
VII. THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS NOT A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF
ii
CONGRESS=S TAXING POWER BECAUSE IT IS EITHER A REGULATION, AN

UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAX, OR MUST BE JUSTIFIED THROUGH SOME OTHER
ENUMERATED POWER. ........................................................................................................... 50
A. The individual mandate is not a legitimate exercise of Congress=s Taxing Power because
it is a regulation and not a tax. .................................................................................................. 50
B. Alternatively, if the individual mandate=s penalty were to be considered a tax, then it is an
unconstitutional direct, unapportioned tax. ............................................................................... 53
C. Congress may not use the taxing power as a backdoor means of regulating an activity
unless the regulations is authorized by the Constitution. .......................................................... 58
VIII. THE PPACA=S INDIVIDUAL MANDATE VIOLATES DUE PROCESS. ................ 60
A. The Amended Petition sufficiently alleges a violation of the liberty guaranteed against
federal encroachment by the Fifth Amendment=s Due Process Clause. ................................... 60
B. The PPACA Impermissibly Infringes Personal Liberty. ................................................ 61
C. The right to be free from governmental coercion is a fundamental right since individuals
have a Due Process right to not enter into a contract for the purchase health insurance from a
corporate stranger...................................................................................................................... 62
D. Petitioners have a fundamental Due Process right to not share confidential medical
information with a corporate stranger. ...................................................................................... 65
E. Freedom from Government Coercion is Deeply Rooted in This Nation=s History. ....... 71
F. The Governmental interest furthered by the individual mandate is insufficiently compelling
and not narrowly tailored. ......................................................................................................... 74
IX. CONCLUSION. ................................................................................................................. 75
iii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Abbott Labs v. Gardner,

387 U.S. 136, 149 (1967) ...................................................................................................10, 11,
ACLU of Fla., Inc., v. Miami-Dave County Sch. Bd.,

557 F.3d 1177, 1195-97 (11th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................... 9 fn. 2
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena,

515 U.S. 200 (1905) ....................................................................................................... 49 fn. 13
Alden v. Maine,
527 U.S. 706, 731-33 (1999) ...................................................................................................23
Andrews v. Ballard,
498 F. Supp. 1038 (S.D. Tex. 1980) .........................................................................................69
Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat=l Union,

442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) .................................................................................................. 9 fn. 2
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (The Child labor Tax Case),

259 U.S. 20, 36 (1922) ...................................................................................................... 19, 59
Barr v. United States,

736 F.2d 1134, 1135 (7th Cir. 1984)..........................................................................................18
Bd. of Trustees v. United States,

289 U.S. 48 (1933) ....................................................................................................................19
Blanchette v. Ct. Gen. Ins. Corps.,

419 U.S. 102, 143 (1974) ..........................................................................................................11
Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon

416 U.S. 725, 741 n. 12 (1974) .................................................................................................20
Bolling v. Sharpe,
347 U.S. 497, 500 (1954) ..........................................................................................................63
Bowsher v. Synar,
478 U.S. 714, 721 (1986) ..........................................................................................................10
iv
Bromley v. McCaughn,
280 U.S. 124, 137-138 (1929) .................................................................................................56
Buckley v. Valeo,
424 U.S. 1, 43-44 (1976)................................................................................................ 49 fn. 13
Carey v. Population Services International,

431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977) ....................................................................................................... 69
Clarke v. Sec. Indus., Ass=n,

479 U.S. 388, 407 (1987) ..........................................................................................................17
Cobell v. Nortoh,
428 F.3d 1070, 1975 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ............................................................................. 17 fn. 5
Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co.,

493 U.S. 203, 214 (1990) ............................................................................................... 56 fn. 20
Comm=r of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Co.,

348 U.S. 426, 429, 431 (1955) ..................................................................................................56
Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co.,

582 F.3d 309, 343 n. 19 (2d Cir. 2009) ................................................................................... 62
Cruzan v. Dir. Mo. Dep=t of Health,

497 U.S., 261 (1990) .................................................................................................................60
Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno,

547 U.S. 332, 342-43 (2006).......................................................................................................6
Daniel v. Paul,
395 U.S. 298 (1969) ................................................................................................................32
Dept of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives,

525 U.S. 316, 329, (1999) .......................................................................................................5, 7
DIRECTV, Inc. v. Brown,

371 F.3d 814, 818 (11th Cir. 2004)............................................................................................16
District of Columbia v. Heller,

128 S.Ct. 2783, 2790 (2008) .....................................................................................................21
Doe v. Bolton,
410 U.S. 179 (1971) ......................................................................................................65, 66, 67
v
Duncan v. Walker,
533 U.S. 167, 173, (2001) .........................................................................................................18
Eisner v. Macomber,
252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920) ........................................................................................................ 56
Elend v. Basham,
471 F.3d 1199, 1211 (11th Cir. 2006).......................................................................................10
Ex Parte Milligan,
71 U.S. 1, 118-19 (1866)...........................................................................................................77
Ex parte Poresky,
290 U.S. 30, 32 (1933) ..................................................................................................... 38 fn. 9
FERC v. Mississippi,
456 U.S. 742, 761 (1982) ..........................................................................................................22
Fernandez v. Wiener,
326 U.S. 340, 362 (1945) ..................................................................................... 4, 55 fn. 19, 57
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.,

220 U.S. 107, 150-51 (1911) ...................................................................................................55
Fla. League of Prof=l Lobbyists, Inc. v. Meggs,

87 F.3d 457, 459 (11th Cir., 1996) .............................................................................................11
Fla. State Conf. of the NAACP v. Browning,

522 F.3d 1153, 1161 (11th Cir. 2008)....................................................................................7, 11
Fountas v. Comm=r of Dep=t of Rev.,

2009 WL 3792468 (Mass. Sup. Ct., Feb. 6, 2009) .......................................................... 38 fn. 9
Freemanville Water Sys. Inc. v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians,

563 F.3d 1205, 1209 (11th Cir. 2009).................................................................................. 15-16
Fullilove v. Klutznick,
448 U.S. 448, 473-74 (1980).......................................................................................... 49 fn. 13
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority,

469 U.S. 528, 572 (Powell, J. dissenting) .................................................................................28
Garcia v. United States,

88 F.3d 318, 324 (5th Cir. 1996)...............................................................................................18
vi
Gibbons v. Ogden,
22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824) ................................................................................................24, 36
Goetz v. Glickman,
920 F. Supp. 1173, 1181 (D. Kan. 1996), aff=d, 149 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 1998)......................13
Gonzales v. Raich,
545 U.S. 1 (2005) ..................................................................................24, 26, 30, 31, 36, 43, 45
Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft,

185 F. Supp. 2d 9, 17-18 (D.D.C. 2001) ...................................................................................12
Gregory v. Ashcroft,
501 U.S. 452, 458 (1991) ..........................................................................................................23
Griswold v. Connecticut,
381 U.S. 479 (1965) ..............................................................................................63, 64, 66, 71
Gustafon v. Alloyd Co.,

513 U.S. 561, 579 (1995) ..........................................................................................................17
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections,

383 U.S. 663 (1966) ..................................................................................................................64
Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc.,

564 F.3d 1301, 1308 (11th Cir. 2009).......................................................................................10
Hasenfus v. LaJeunesse,
175 F. 3s 68, 71 (1st Cir. 1999) .................................................................................................77
Head Money Cases,

112 U.S. 580 (1894) ............................................................................................................13, 19
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States,

379 U.S. 241 (1964) ..................................................................................................................32
Helvering v. Davis,
301 U.S. 619, 645 (1937) ..........................................................................................................58
Hill v. Wallace,
259 U.S. 44, 70 (1922) ..............................................................................................................49
Hirabayashi v. United States,

320 U.S. 81 (1943) ....................................................................................................................74
vii
Hodge v. Muscatine County,

196 U.S. 276 (1905) ................................................................................................................17
Hylton v. United States,

3 Dall. 175 (1976) ...............................................................................................................54, 55
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Fordice,

30 F.Supp.2d 945, 951 (S.D.Miss.1997) (Wingate, J) ................................................................8
Jacobson v. Massachusetts,
197 U.S. 11, 25, (1905) .............................................................................................................75
Kent v. Dulles,
357 U.S. 116, 126......................................................................................................................65
Knowlton v. Moore,
178 U.S. 41, 82 (1900) ..............................................................................................................54
License Tax Cases,

72 U.S. 462 (1866) ......................................................................................................... 49 fn. 12
Lipke v. Lederer,
259 U.S. 557, 561-62 (1922).....................................................................................................19
Los Angeles v. Lyons,

461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983) ..............................................................................................................8
Loving v. Virginia,
388 U.S. 1 (1967) ......................................................................................................................64
Lujan Defenders of Wildlife,

504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)...................................................................................................5, 8
Marbury v. Madison,
5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 176 (1803) ............................................................................................23
Marchetti v. United States,

390 U.S. 39 (1968) .................................................................................................................. 18
Massachusetts v. EPA,
549 U.S. at 521-23 .............................................................................................................. 7, 10
McConnell v. FEC,
540 U.S. 93, 226 (2003) ..............................................................................................................7
viii
McCulloch v. Maryland,
4 (Wheat.) 316, 405 (1819) .................................................................................................23, 36
Meyer v. Nebraska,
262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923) ....................................................................................................60, 64
Mich. Ave. Assocs. v. Devine,

433 F.3d 961, 962 (7th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................................7
Mississippi State Democratic Party v. Barbour,

529 F.3d 538, 544 (5th Cir. 2008)...............................................................................................5
Mobile Republican Assembly v. United States

353 F. 3d 1357, 1361 (11th Cir. 2003).......................................................................................19
Moore v. City of East Cleveland,

431 U.S. 494 (1977) ................................................................................................54, 62, 63, 64
Morales v. Daley,
116 F. Supp. 2d 801 (S.D. Tex. 2000)
aff=d, 275 F. 3d 45 (5th Cir. 2001),
cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1135 (2002) ...........................................................................................37
Murphy v. Internal Revenue Serv.,

493 F.3d 170, 181 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ..........................................................................................57
NAACP v. Alabama,
357 U.S. 449 (1958) ..................................................................................................................64
NAACP v. Button,
371 U.S. 415 (1963) ..................................................................................................................64
NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp,

301 U.S. 1 (1937) ......................................................................................................................31
Nevada v. Burford,
918 F.2d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 1990) ..............................................................................................12
New York v. United States,

505 U.S. 144, 155-56 (1992)...............................................................................................44, 45
Okpalobi v. Foster,
190 F.3d 337, 350 (5th Cir. 1999)...............................................................................................6
ix
Olmstead v. United States,

277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J. dissenting) ............................................................65, 74
Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Res. Conservation & Dev. Comm=n,
461 U.S. 190, 201-03 (1983).....................................................................................................11
Palko v. Connecticut,
302 U.S. 319 (1937) ..................................................................................................................62
Pennell v. City of San Jose,

485 U.S. 1, 8 (1988) ........................................................................................................... 9 fn. 2
Pierce v. Soc=y of Sisters,

268 U.S. 510, 536 (1925) ................................................................................................7, 60, 64
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa v. Casey,

505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992) ..........................................................................................................68
Pollock v. Farmers= Loan & Trust Co.,

157 U.S. 429, 557 (1895) ..........................................................................................................54
Prejean v. Foster,
83 Fed. Appx. 5, 8 (5th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................................10
Printz v. United States,

521 U.S. 898, 921-22 (1997)...............................................................................1, 35, 40, 44, 45
Reid v. Covert,
354 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1957) (Black, J.) (plurality opinion)...............................................................21
Regal Drug Corp. V. Wardell,

260 U.S. 386, 391-92 (1922).....................................................................................................19
Reno v. Flores,
507 U.S. 292, 302 (1993) ..........................................................................................................74
Rex v. Duchess of Kingston,

20 How. State Tr. 355, 572-73 (1776) ......................................................................................66
Rodgers v. United States,

138 F.2d 992, 994 (6th Cir. 1943) ........................................................................................16, 19
Roe v. Wade,
410 U.S. 113 (1973) ............................................................................................................64, 67
x
Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va.,

515 U.S. 819, 841 (1995) ........................................................................................................52
Sabri v. United States,

541 U.S. 600 (2004) ..................................................................................................... 49 fn. 12
Selective Service Cases,

245 U.S. 366, 383, 390 (1918) ..................................................................................................37
Serv. Co. v. Fed. Energy Admin.,

529 F.2d 1016, 1029 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1975) .................................................................13
Sonzinsky v. United States,

300 U.S. 506, 513 (1937) ..........................................................................................................18
Sotto v. Wainwright,
601 F.2d 184, 191 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied
445 U.S. 950 (1980) ..................................................................................................................63
South Carolina v. Katzenbach,

383 U.S. 301, 317 (1966) ..........................................................................................................12
State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs.,

F.Supp.2d -, 2010 WL 4010119 (N. D. Fla.) ......................................... 32, 35, 36, 44, 54 fn. 16
Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co.,

473 U.S. 568, 577-78 (1985).....................................................................................................12
Thomas v. United States,

192 U.S. 363, 370 (1904) ..........................................................................................................55
Toilet Goods Ass=n v. Gardner,

387 U.S. 158, 163-64 (1967)...............................................................................................11, 12
Trimble v. City of New Iberia,

73 F.Supp.2d 659, 664 ................................................................................................................6
Tyler v. United States,

281 U.S. 497 (1930) ............................................................................................................55, 56
Union Electric Co. v. United States,

363 F. 3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................... 55 fn. 19
United States v. Butler,

297 U.S. 1, 75 (1936) ..........................................................................................................48, 49
xi
United States v. Carolene Products,

304 U.S. 144, 153 n.4 (1938) ....................................................................................................74
United States v. Comstock,

130 S. Ct. 1949, 1967 (2010) ........................................................................... 25, 28, 34 thru 45
United States v. Doremus,

249 U.S. 86 (1919) ......................................................................................................... 49 fn. 12
United States v. Guest,

383 U.S. 745 (1966) ..................................................................................................................63
United States v. Kahriger,

345 U.S. 22, 31-32 (1953)...................................................................................................18, 52
United States v. La Franca,

282 U.S. 568, 572 (1931) ..........................................................................................................19
United States v. Lopez,

514 U.S. 549, 575 (1995) ..............................................................................1, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29
United States v. Mfrs. Nat=l Bank of Detroit,

363 U.S. 194, 199 (1960) ..........................................................................................................54
United States v. Morrison,

529 U.S. 598, 608 (2000) ....................................................................................................24, 29
United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators, of Utah, Inc.,

518 U.S. 213, 222 (1996); 26 U.S.C. sec.7806(b) ....................................................................14
United States v. Ross,

458 F.2d 1144, 1145 (5th Cir. 1972), cert denied,
409 U.S. 868 (1972) ....................................................................................................... 49 fn. 12
United States v. Sanchez,

340 U.S. 42, 44 (1950) ..............................................................................................................52
United States v. Spoerke,

568 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2009)....................................................................................... 49 fn. 12
United States v. Wrightwood Dairy,

315 U.S. 110, 119 (1942) ..........................................................................................................31
xii
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish,

300 U.S. 379 (1937) ..................................................................................................................61
Whitmore v. Arkansas,
495 U.S. 149 (1990) ....................................................................................................................7
Wickard v. Filburn,
317 U.S. 111 (1942) ..........................................................................................30, 31, 32, 43, 76
Williams v. Morgan,
478 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................61
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1, a letter to Congress entitled “A.C.T.” for Privacy in 2009, from Coalition for Patient
Privacy, dated January 14, 2009
Exhibit 2, Brief Of Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union Of Florida, Inc. Filed By Leave
Of Court And In Support Of The Appellant, Rush Limbaugh, Appellant v. State of Florida,
Appellee, CASE NO.: 4D03-4973, District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida (4th District
2004)
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
U.S. Const. amend. I
U.S. Const. amend. IV
U.S. Const. amend. V
U.S. Const. amend. IX
U.S. Const. amend. X
U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 1
U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 2, cl. 3 & art. I, sec. 9, cl. 4
U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 8
U.S. Const., art. I, sec.8, cl. 3 (Commerce Cl.)
xiii
U.S. Const. article I, sec. 8, Clauses 1-17 (Taxing & Spending Cl.)
U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 8, cl. 12
U.S. Const. art. I, sec.8, cl. 18 (Necessary & Proper Cl.)
U.S. Const. art. I, sec.9
U.S. Const. art. III, sec. 2
STATUTES
Age Discrimination in Employment Act ( ADEA ) sec.501 U.S. at 473
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
Excise Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers, sec.1405, 10907
Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub.L. No. 1211-152
124 Stat. 1029 (2010) (AHCERA@)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (APPACA@), Pub. L. No. 111-148,
sec.1501(a)(1), 124 Stat. 119 (2010)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-148,
sec. 1501(a)(b)(1), 1501 (a)(2)(A), 1501 (a)(2)(D), 1501 (a)(2)(I), 1501 (a)(2)(J)
and 1501(b)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010

sec.1501 at sec.5000A, 5000A(b)(1), 5000A(g), 5000A(g)(2)(A), 5000A(g)(A) and
5000A(g)(2)(B)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010,

sec.9001, 9004, 9005, 9017 and 10907
15 U.S.C. sec. 1011 (1945) McCarran-Ferguson Act
26 U.S.C. sec. 61 (H.R. Rep. No. 1337, 83rd Cong. 2d. Sess., 18 (1954))
26 U.S.C. sec. 5000A(g)
26 U.S.C. sec. 7421(a) (The Anti-Injunction Act)
29 U.S.C. sec. 1001-1453 (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 )
xiv
OTHER AUTHORITIES
13B Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure sec.3532.1 & n.53 (3d ed. 2008)
Adam Freedman, Roe v. Obamacare, National Review Online, June 15, 2010,
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229956/i-roe-i-v-obamacare/adam-freedman#
Andrew Jackson, Veto Message, reprinted in 3 The Founders= Constitution 263
Black=s Law Dictionary 1133 (6th ed. 1990), 1153 (7th ed. 1999) (8th ed. 2004)
Cong. Budget office, The Budgetary Treatment of an Individual Mandate to Buy Health Insurance
1 (1994)
Election Night 2010: Exit Poll Results, Rasmussen Reports, Nov. 2, 2010,
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2010/election_n
ight/election_night_2010_exit_poll_results
Daniel W. Shuman, The Origins of the Physician-Patient Privilege and Professional Secret, 39
S.W. L. J. 661, 671-72 (1985)
Gary Lawson & Patricia B. Granger, The AProper@ Scope of Federal Power: A Jurisdictional
Interpretation of the Sweeping Clause, 43 Duke L. J. 267, 271 (1993)
George Stephanopoulos, Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax, ABC News, Sept,. 2009
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax.html
Ilya Shapiro, State Suits Against Health Reform Are Well Grounded in Law B And Pose Serious
Challenges, 29 Health Affairs 1229, 1232 (June 2010)
J. Randy Beck, The New Jurisprudence of the Necessary and Proper Clause, 2002 U. Ill. L. Rev.
581, 622 (2002)
JCT, Estimated Revenue Effects of the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 4872,
theAReconciliation Act of 2010, as amended, in Combination with the Revenue Effects of H.R.
3590, the APPACA@,as Passed by the Senate, and Scheduled for Consideration by the House
Committee on Rules on March 20, 2010 (JCX-17-10), March 20, 2010
JCT, Overview of Revenue Estimating Procedures and Methodologies Used by the Staff of the
Joint Committee on Taxation (JCX-1-05), February 2, 2005, at 2
JCT, Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the AReconciliation Act of 2010,@ as
amended, in combination with the APPACA@ (JCX-18-10), March 21, 2010, at 31-34
James Madison, ALetter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792,@ The Papers of James
Madison, ed. Robert A. Rutland et al., vol. 14 (University Press of Virginia, 1984)
xv
Jennie Jacobs Kronenfeld, The Changing Federal Role in U.S. Health Care Policy 67 (Praeger
Publishers, 1997)
Letter from Douglas Elmendorf, Director, CBO, to the Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker, U.S. House of
Reps. (March. 20, 2010)
Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, p. 15 (2002)
Obama: Requiring health insurance is not a tax increase, CNN (Sept. 29, 2009)
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/20/obama.health.car/index.html
Occupational Outlook Handbook 2010-11 Edition
Nicholas Johnston & Kate Anderson Brower, Obama Standing Firm on No Middle Class Tax
Increase, Bloomberg.com, Aug. 4, 2009 http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206
Randy E. Barnett, The Original Meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause, 6 U. Pa. J. Const.
L.183, 208-15 (2003)
Randy E. Barnett, Can the Constitution Stop Health Care Reform,. Wash. Post., Mar. 21, 2010, at
B2
Randy E. Barnett, The Insurance Mandate in Peril, Wall St. J., Apr. 29, 2010, at A19
Requiring Individuals to Obtain Health Insurance: A Constitutional Analysis, Cong. Research

Serv. (2009)
Robert M. Gellman, Prescribing Privacy: The Uncertain Role of the Physician in the Protection
of Patient Privacy, 62 N.C.L. REV. 255, 267-68 (1984)
Robert Hartman & Paul Van de Water, AThe Budgetary Treatment of an Individual Mandate to
Buy Health Insurance,@ CBO Memo., at 1, Aug. 1994
Robert A. Levy, The Taxing Power of Obamacare, National Review Online, Apr. 20, 2010
http://article.nationalreview.com/431915/the-taxing-power-of-obamacare/
robert-a-levy?page=1
Staff of Joint Comm. on Taxation, 111th Cong., Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions
of the AReconciliation Act of 2010
States Argue the Feds Can=t Force Purchase of Health Insurance, Wash. Post, Mar. 25, 2010, at
A20
xvi
Scott Rassmussen, A Vote Against Dems, Not for the GOP, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 1, 2010,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703708404575586063725870380.html
The Antifederalists at 1xx (Cecelia M. Kenyon, ed., 1985)
The Budgetary Treatment of an Individual Mandate to Buy Health Insurance, Cong. Budget
Office Memorandum (August 1994)
The Founders= Constitution 263 (Philip B. Kurland & Ralph Lerner eds.,1987)
The Federalist No. 14 at 97 (James Madison)
The Federalist No. 32 (New York: Barnes & Noble Classics (2006)), 168-69, 171
The Federalist No. 33, at 202
The Federalist No. 37, at 227 (James Madison)
The Federalist No. 39, at 285 (J. Madison)
The Federalist No. 51
Timothy S. Jost & Mark A. Hall, The Role of State Regulation in Consumer- Driven Health Care,
31 Am. J. L. & Med. 395, 398 (2005)
William Blackstone, Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of
the Federal Government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia 287
(1803)
Willis and Chung, of Constitutional De-Capitation of Health Dare, 127 Tax Notes 9 (2010)
xvii
I. INTRODUCTION.
This case is about the continuing vitality of our longstanding federalist system. The
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act1 (APPACA@ or Athe Act@) represents an unprecedented
intrusion on the sovereignty of the States and the freedom of their citizens. As such, it threatens to
destroy our traditional system of dual sovereignty - our compound republic - under which the
federal government is to exercise only those limited powers conferred upon it by the Constitution,
with all other powers reserved to the States or the people. See New York v. United States, 505
U.S. 144, 155-56 (1992). This system, as Justice Kennedy explained in United States v. Lopez,
514 U.S. 549, 575 (1995) (concurring), Awas the unique contribution of the Framers to political
science and political theory.@ It was designed to achieve a Ahealthy balance of power between the
States and the Federal Government [to] reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse from either front[,]@
by empowering both governments so that each Awill control [the] other . . . .@ Printz v. United
States, 521 U.S. 898, 921-22 (1997). In enacting the PPACA, Congress upends that balance,
usurping powers denied it and thereby inflicting the very harm warned of in Printz.
Specifically, Petitioners are profoundly affected by ' 1501 of the PPACA, the Aindividual
mandate@ (called the "minimum coverage provision" in Defendant's motion), which dictates that
Americans purchase a healthcare insurance policy for themselves and their families or be
penalized. Thus, for the first time in American history, Congress is requiring that Americans
enter a marketplace and purchase a product, whether it is wanted or not. The individual mandate
will go into effect after December 31, 2013, and Petitioners have no intention of abiding by its
1
Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), as amended by Health Care and
Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 (2010) (AHCERA@).
1
unconstitutional demand to purchase insurance or to pay a penalty for their inactivity.
Without question, the individual mandate is manifestly unconstitutional. No enumerated
power of Congress permits this assertion of top-down centralized economic power; nor can the
Necessary and Proper Clause expand congressional power to support the mandate. Congress=s
commerce power extends to regulation of activities having a substantial relation to interstate
commerce, but does not allow it to compel inactive individuals to enter a marketplace against their
will. Likewise, Congress=s power to tax does not authorize it to compel persons to purchase
specific insurance products. By exerting such sweeping authority over individual decisions,
Congress has seized powers denied it under the Tenth Amendment, in violation of the
Constitution=s federalist structure and individual rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments.
For the sake of our republic, the constitutional limits imposed on the federal government
must stand for something. To find that the mandate is constitutional would be the first-ever
interpretation of the Commerce power, the Necessary and Proper Clause or the taxing power to
permit the regulation of inactivity B commanding an individual to affirmatively engage in an
economic transaction. If allowed, A[t]he federal government would then have wide authority to
require that Americans engage in activities of its choosing, from eating spinach and joining gyms B
in the health care realm B to buying cars from General Motors.@ Ilya Shapiro, State Suits Against
health Reform Are Well Grounded in Law B And Pose Serious Challenges, 29 Health Affairs 1229,
1232 (June 2010). A dismissal of the Amended Petition would grant Congress unlimited power
to regulate, prohibit, or mandate any or all activities in the United States. Such a doctrine would
abolish any limit on federal power and forever alter the fundamental relationship of the national
government to the states and the people.
Americans repeatedly have expressed concern and opposition to the health care law, and a
2
large-and-still-growing majority say they want it repealed. In the historic elections of November
2, 2010, the well-respected Rasmussen Reports conducted exit polls and found that 59% of those
who voted on Election Day favor repealing the PPACA - numbers that have been pretty consistent
since the troubling health care measure was passed in March 2010. Rassmussen Reports, Nov. 2,
2010. The day before the election, Rassmussen wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
Central to the Democrats' electoral woes was the debate on

health-care reform. From the moment in May 2009 when the
Congressional Budget Office announced that the president's plan
would cost a trillion dollars, most voters opposed it. Today 53%
want to repeal it. Opposition was always more intense than support,
and opposition was especially high among senior citizens, who vote
in high numbers in midterm elections.
Scott Rassmussen, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 1, 2010. The byline to this opinion article states:
"Voters don't want to be governed from the left, right or center. They want Washington to
recognize that Americans want to govern themselves." Indeed, self-government is a
quintessentially American idea, and the desire to govern ourselves is a defining characteristic of
our nation. A major reason that the PPACA is so unpopular is the liberty-robbing individual
mandate. Americans recognize that there is something quite un-American with a government
dictating to citizens that they must buy government approved health insurance whether they want
it or not.
Defendants' memorandum is replete with political arguments about why the health
insurance reforms in the Act were both necessary and a good idea, but such arguments as to
whether or not reform was needed (or whether the Act is even capable of delivering on its
promises) are completely beside the point. Americans cherish liberty, and we live in the freest
nation on earth because the people have reserved power to the states and to themselves, granting
only a limited amount of power to the federal government. Unless a power is specifically
3
enumerated in the United States Constitution, it is not a power that the federal government
possesses. The power to dictate to the people that they must purchase a government-approved
health insurance plan cannot be found in all of the Constitution. To allow the individual mandate
to stand would be to afford Congress unlimited power and destroy the limitations our founding
fathers imposed on the government.
ARGUMENT
II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE INDIVIDUAL

MANDATE, AND THEIR CHALLENGE IS RIPE.
A motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6) “is viewed with disfavor and is rarely granted.”
Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales v. Avondale Shipyards, 677 F.2d 1045, 1050 (5th Cir. 1982).
Rule 12(b) (6) must be read in conjunction with Rule 8(a), which requires “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A court must not dismiss a complaint for failure to state a
claim unless the plaintiff has failed to plead “enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible
on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570; Sonnier v. State Farm, 509 F.3d 673, 675 (5th Cir. 2007).
In ruling on motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the district court “accepts all
well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.” In re Katrina
Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 204 (5th Cir. 2007). The reviewing court must also “resolve
any ambiguities or doubts regarding the sufficiency of the claim in favor of the plaintiff.”
Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Ass'n, 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993).
A. Petitioners have standing.
To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) Ainjury in fact@; (2) a casual
relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct; and (3) harm that will be Aredressed by
4
a favorable decision.@ Lujan Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). The latter
elements plainly are met, since when a plaintiff is the object of governmental action, Athere is
ordinarily little question that the action . . . has caused him injury, and that a judgment preventing
. . . the action will redress it.@ Indeed, Defendants concede the latter elements by disputing only
Petitioners= injuries-in-fact.
"The 'essence' of standing is 'whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the
merits of the dispute or of particular issues.'" Mississippi State Democratic Party v. Barbour, 529
F.3d 538, 544 (5th Cir. 2008). In order to have standing, “a plaintiff must show: (1) it has
suffered, or imminently will suffer, a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact; (2) the injury is
fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct; and (3) a favorable judgment is likely to redress the
injury.” Id. "An injury in fact is an invasion of a legally protected interest which is 'actual or
imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.'" Id. The individual mandate by its terms applies to
individual Petitioners. Am. Pet. && 21-28. As shown below, the mandate causes Petitioners
concrete, actual, and imminent injury. No further administrative action is required to trigger the
mandate=s facially coercive effects, and the court=s assessment of its constitutionality vel non will
not be assisted by any actual experience with its application.
Defendants make factual arguments as to whether any plaintiffs will suffer an injury,
however, in this 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court may not weigh evidence or engage in
speculation. Instead, the allegations of the amended petition must be accepted as fact, and "'mere
allegations of injury' are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss based on lack of standing."
State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs., - F. Supp. 2d -, 2010 WL 4010119 (N.
D. Fla.), quoting Dep’t of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives, 525 U.S. 316, 329, (1999).
Petitioners have alleged that the individual mandate will require Petitioners to apply for and
5
purchase qualifying healthcare insurance, even though they do not have it and do not want it. Am.
Pet. && 25, 26. Thus, they are forced either to enter into an economic transaction they want no
part of or be penalized monetarily. Since Petitioners allege direct economic harm from the
PPACA=s impending mandate, standing to assert their claims clearly exists. See, e.g., Okpalobi v.
Foster, 190 F.3d 337, 350 (5th Cir. 1999). Plainly, their alleged economic injuries are Adistinct
and palpable.@ These are not mere Ageneralized grievances@ about how tax dollars may be spent,
or based on infringement of a broad right to constitutional government, as asserted in Daimler
Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342-43 (2006), and similar cases on which Defendants rely.
Def. Mem. 8-11.
The plaintiffs have numerous allegations in the amended petition that are relevant to the
standing issue. Indeed, Petitioners have not merely alleged that they have no intention of either
abiding by the individual mandate or paying the penalty, they have strongly promised that they
will resist the statute. Given this fact alone, the ripeness inquiry is satisfied:
Related to the standing requirement is the question of ripeness. In

the [constitutional] context involving a pre-enforcement challenge,
the ripeness inquiry focuses on how imminent the threat of
prosecution is and whether the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged an
intention to refuse to comply with the statute in order to ensure that
the fear of prosecution is genuine and the alleged infringement on
[constitutional] rights is concrete and credible as opposed to being
speculative or imaginative.
Trimble v. City of New Iberia, 73 F. Supp. 2d 659, 664 (W. D. La. 1999) (First Amendment
freedom of speech case) (emphasis added).
B. The individual mandate=s future effective date, which is definite, does not
deprive Petitioners of standing or violate the requirement of ripeness.
The crux of Defendants' standing arguments are that Petitioners= injuries are too
Aindefinite@ or too far in the future to support standing, Def. Mem. 8-11, but courts repeatedly have
6
found standing to pursue a pre-enforcement constitutional challenge where the alleged harm will
occur in the future. See, e.g., Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 521-23 (standing based on rise in
sea levels by the end of this century); Pierce v. Soc=y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 536 (1925) (standing
to challenge education act before effective date; while the Supreme Court did not quantify the
Alead time,@ the lower court had identified it as at least two years and five months at 296 F. 928,
933 (D. Or. 1924)); Dep=t of Commerce v. U.S. House of Reps., 525 U.S. 316, 332 (1999) (standing
in February 1998 to challenge sampling method for 2000 Census); Vill. of Bensenvill v. FAA, 376
F.3d 1114, 1119 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (standing to contest fees not collectible for 13 years).
Standing Adepends on the probability of harm, not its temporal proximity.@ See 520 S.
Mich. Ave. Assocs. v. Devine, 433 F.3d 961, 962 (7th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). As discussed
infra, Defendants concede the "probability of harm" by stating that millions of people will pay
billions in penalties, yet they argue that the enforcement date is so far away that there is no
"immediacy." As the Eleventh Circuit has held, Aimmediacy requires only that the anticipated
injury occur with some fixed period of time in the future, not that it happen in the colloquial sense
of soon or precisely within a certain number of days, weeks, or months.@ Fla. State Conf. of the
NAACP v. Browning, 522 F.3d 1153, 1161 (11th Cir. 2008) (emphasis added). Individual
Petitioners must comply with the individual mandate after December 31, 2013. PPACA '
1501(b). That date is fixed in the law and is certain to occur; it is a statutory certainty.
Defendants= reliance on Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149 (1990), and similar
authorities is misplaced. The issue in those cases was not passage of time, but the contingent and
thus uncertain nature of the alleged injuries. Whitmore involved a prisoner=s challenge to
procedures that would not affect him unless he could secure federal habeas relief from his
conviction and sentence. See also McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93, 226 (2003) (U.S. Senator
7
would not be affected by challenged provisions unless he chose to run for reelection five years
later); Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983) (no standing to seek injunction prohibiting
police from potential future use of Achoke holds@); Lujan, 504 U.S. at 564 (plaintiff expressed only
vague intention Asome day@ to return to Sri Lanka to observe endangered species); Connecticut v.
Am. Elec. Power Co., 582 F.3d 309, 343 n.19 (2d Cir. 2009) (confirming Petitioners= reading of
McDonnell).
State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs. is a case that is "on all fours" with
the instant matter, since it was brought by the Attorney General of the State of Florida alleging that
the individual mandate is unconstitutional. In that case, the court recently held that "the injury
alleged in this case will not occur at 'some indefinite future time.' Instead, the date is definitively
fixed in the Act and will occur in 2014, when the individual mandate goes into effect and the
individual plaintiffs are forced to buy insurance or pay the penalty." State of Florida v. U.S.
Dept. of Health and Human Svcs., 2010 WL 4010119 at *18. That holding is entirely consistent
with the holding of this court in in Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Fordice, where the plaintiff argued that it
had suffered past economic harm and "is threatened with future economic losses." Illinois Cent.
R. Co. v. Fordice, 30 F. Supp. 2d 945, 951 (S. D. Miss. 1997). Judge Wingate held that "the threat
of future harm to the plaintiff and its employees is real and immediate," reasoning that if the court
"determine[d] the state statute under which the defendants were acting is null and void, plaintiff
will not be subjected to such intrusions again and, therefore, will not suffer the same economic
injuries." Id. (emphasis added).
C. Defendants' own research about what the future will hold disproves their
assertion that the threat plaintiffs face is "imaginary or speculative."
In a variation of their temporal proximity argument, Defendants argue that the "threat"
8
plaintiffs' face is "imaginary or speculative" merely because the individual mandate penalty will
not start being collected until 2015 (thus disingenuously ignoring the entire year of 2104, when the
mandate goes into effect). Def. Mem. 9. However, there is nothing speculative or contingent
about Petitioners= claims: the mandate will take effect on January 1, 2014, and will apply to
individual Petitioners. Petitioners do not now have qualifying coverage, and have no intention of
changing their status in this regard. Am. Compel && 27, 28. Their injuries are not contingent
upon further act or decision on their part. The only speculation here is by Defendants. Def.
Mem. 8-11.2
Defendants have provided us with ample proof that millions of people will not only be
subject to a potential penalty, but will actually be forced to pay penalties under the Act. Based
upon a CBO report, Defendants have asserted that the penalty will raise about "$4 billion in annual
revenue." Def. Mem. 43. The CBO and JCT (Joint Committee on Taxation) have calculated that
"[i]n total, about 4 million people are projected to pay a penalty because they will be uninsured in
2016 (a figure that includes uninsured dependents who have the penalty paid on their behalf)."3
Thus, instead of demonstrating that these penalties are imaginary or speculative, Defendants have
actually calculated that millions of individuals who are in fact subject to the individual mandate
will fail to comply with its dictates, thus violating the law and incurring penalties of billions of
2
Petitioners need only show that their injury is probable, not that it is absolutely
certain. See, e.g., Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 8 (1988) (Aprobability@ that landlord=s
rent would be reduced by law Asufficient threat of actual injury@ to satisfy Article III); Babbitt v.
United Farm Workers Nat=l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) (standing where Arealistic danger of
sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute= operation or enforcement@); ACLU of Fla., Inc. v.
Miami-Dave County Sch. Bd., 557 F.3d 1177, 1195-97 (11th Cir. 2009) (standing to challenge
library=s ban of book plaintiff intended to check out later that year).
3
Payments of Penalties for Being Uninsured Under the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act, April 22, 2010 at 2 (emphasis added).
9
dollars in aggregate.
Of course, even one single Petitioner=s standing affords yet another basis by which the
court can consider the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549
U.S. at 518 (AOnly one of the petitioners needs to have standing to permit us to consider the
petition for review.@); Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714, 721 (1986) (declining to bother to
adjudicate a labor union=s standing where a union member alleged an injury-in-fact); Prejean v.
Foster, 83 Fed.Appx. 5, 8 (5th Cir. 2003) ("In cases with multiple plaintiffs, the presence of at least
one party with standing makes the case justiciable."). Importantly, the figure of 4 million people
is just the people who will be paying the penalty - obviously, the number of people who will be
subject to the individual mandate and who will let themselves be coerced into involuntarily
purchasing insurance will be even higher. Defendants thus admit that the threat is "certainly
impending," and by actually calculating the number of people who will be subject to the penalty
and the amount in aggregate that they will pay, Defendants have shown that the threat of future
enforcement is not speculative in the least.
D. Petitioners= claims challenging the individual mandate are ripe.
Ripeness turns on two factors: Athe fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the
hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.@ Abbott Labs v. Gardner, 387 U.S.
136, 149 (1967). As Defendants must admit, a Aconspicuous overlap@ exists between standing
and ripeness inquiries in pre-enforcement challenges to statutes like the PPACA, where ripeness
often turns on Awhether there is sufficient injury to meet Article III=s requirement of a case or
controversy and, if so, whether the claim is sufficiently mature, and the issues sufficiently defined
and concrete, to permit effective decision-making by the court.@ Elend v. Basham, 471 F.3d 1199,
1211 (11th Cir. 2006); see also Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc., 564 F.3d 1301, 1308 (11th
10
Cir. 2009) (purely legal claim is Apresumptively ripe for judicial review@ because no developed
factual record needed). Here, all Petitioners allege that the individual mandate will cause them
actual, concrete, and imminent injury. Am. Comp. && 21-28.
Defendants cannot rely on the mandate=s effective date being in the future, because injury
to Petitioners is inevitable and, A[w]here the inevitability of the operation of a statute against
certain individuals is patent, it is irrelevant to the existence of a justiciable controversy that there
will be a time delay before the disputed provisions come into effect.@ Blanchette v. Ct. Gen. Ins.
Corps., 419 U.S. 102, 143 (1974). If Athe enforcement of a statute is certain, a pre-enforcement
challenge will not be rejected on ripeness grounds.@ Browning, 522 F.3d at 1164 (emphasis
added); See also Fla. League of Prof=l Lobbyists, Inc. v. Meggs, 87 F.3d 457, 459 (11th Cir. 1996)
(lobbying group=s prospective challenge to law=s constitutionality was ripe where group was faced
with choice to Arefrain from engaging in protected First Amendment activity or risk civil sanction
for alleged unethical conduct@); Abbott Labs., 387 U.S. at 152-53 (challenge to regulation was ripe
where it was directed at plaintiffs, required them to change business practices, and subjected them
to civil penalties for noncompliance). This is particularly true where, as here, the challenge
mainly raises questions of law. See Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Res. Conservation &
Dev. Comm=n, 461 U.S. 190, 201-03 (1983) (case ripe where Apredominantly legal@ question
raised).
Nor is there any Auncertainty@ about whether the mandate will apply to Petitioners. Unlike
Toilet Goods Ass=n v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 158, 163-64 (1967), and cases like it, the individual
mandate as written will impact Petitioners, regardless of any additional administrative action.
Defendants= cases, Def. Mem. 13-14, are inapposite. They involve either injuries contingent on
11
further agency action (ruling by arbitration tribunal in Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co.,
473 U.S. 568, 577-78 (1985), completion of site selection process in Nevada v. Burford, 918 F.2d
854, 857 (9th Cir. 1990), additional FDA determinations in Toilet Goods)), or provisions
forbidding conduct where no violation or desire to engage in the conduct was alleged (interference
with voting rights in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 317 (1966), deprivation of
rights by officials in Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F. Supp. 2d 9,
17-18 (D.D.C. 2001)). And unlike the FDA regulation at issue in Toilet Goods, the mandate=s
validity does not turn on factors (e.g., practical enforcement problems) such that the Ajudicial
appraisal . . . is likely to stand on a much surer footing in the context of a specific application@ of
the challenged provision. Id. at 164. Congress itself has established the individual mandate=s
metes and bounds. Its practical application by the agencies enforcing it will not illuminate the
legal issues now raised. This case is fully ripe for adjudication. See Virginia v. Sebelius, Mem.
Op. at 15-17 (Aug. 2, 2010) (State=s challenge to the individual mandate is ripe).
III. THE ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT DOES NOT APPLY AND THEREFORE DOES
NOT DEPRIVE PETITIONERS OF STANDING.
The President, Congress and the PPACA all agree that the mandate is a "penalty" and that it
is definitely not a tax. However, in an attempt to shoehorn the mandate in under the protection of
the Anti-Injunction Act, Defendants now enthusiastically embrace the "tax" label. At least one
court has criticized this "shift in position" as a blatant attempt to avoid accountability:
In other words, the members of Congress would have reaped a

political advantage by calling and treating it as a penalty while the
Act was being debated [ ], and then reap a legal advantage by
calling it a tax in court once it passed into law. See Def. Mem. at
33-34, 49 (arguing that the Anti-Injunction Act bars any challenge
to the penalty which, in any event, falls under Congress's “very
extensive” authority to tax for the general welfare). This should not
be allowed, and I am not aware of any reported case where it ever
12
has been.
State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs., - F. Supp. 2d -, 2010 WL 4010119 at *15
(N.D. Fla.) (Roger Vinson, J.), 106 A.F.T.R. 2d 2010-676 (internal citations omitted). This
distasteful political maneuvering, however, ultimately does nothing to avail the defendants, since
the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. ' 7421(a) (AAIA@) applies only to "taxes," and the individual
mandate is clearly not a tax.
Whether the individual mandate penalty is a tax is an important question that not only
implicates jurisdiction (vis-a-vis the Anti-Injunction Act), but it also goes to the merits of the
individual mandate-related challenges of whether the penalty can be justified by, and enforced
through, Congress’s taxing power, or whether the penalty must be analyzed instead under the more
limited Commerce Clause authority. The federal court for the Northern District of Florida has
considered virtually identical arguments by the Defendants in the similar case against the PPCA
filed there, and ruled that the individual mandate is not a "tax," but rather is a "penalty" that does
not fall under the Anti-Injunction Act: "[I]t is obvious that Congress did not pass the penalty, in
the version of the legislation that is now 'the Act,' as a tax under its taxing authority, but rather as a
penalty pursuant to its Commerce Clause power." State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and
Human Svcs., supra.
The mandate, which requires persons to have coverage, cannot be a tax subject to the AIA,
because its stated purpose is not to raise revenue but to create Aeffective health insurance markets.@
See Goetz v. Glickman, 920 F. Supp. 1173, 1181 (D. Kan. 1996), aff=d, 149 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir.
1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1102 (1999) (citing Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 (1884)) (a
regulation Awill not constitute a tax unless the real purpose and effect of the statute and regulations
. . . is to raise revenues for the general support of the government.@); Cities Serv. Co. v. Fed. Energy
13
Admin., 529 F.2d 1016, 1029 (Temp. Emer. Ct. App. 1975) (same); see also Def. Mem. 5 (quoting
PPACA '' 1501(a)(2)(I), 10106(a)). Indeed, the Individual mandate itself raises no revenue, and
significantly, in enacting the mandate, Congress expressly relied on its commerce power. Thus,
the Act=s corresponding enforcement penalty also is not a tax. As with the mandate itself,
Congress grounded the penalty in the Commerce Clause, not in its taxing or spending powers. It
designed and denominated the penalty as a means to enforce the Individual mandate. PPACA '
1501 at ' 5000A(b)(1). By contrast, where Congress levies taxes, it identifies them as such B as it
did in at least five other sections of the Act. See , e.g., PPACA '' 9001, 9004, 9015, 9017 and
10907.
Although his interpretation is not dispositive, it also bears noting that President Obama
"strongly and emphatically denied that the penalty was a tax. When confronted with the dictionary
definition of a 'tax' during a much publicized interview widely disseminated by all of the news
media, and asked how the penalty did not meet that definition, the President said it was “absolutely
not a tax” and, in fact, '[n]obody considers [it] a tax increase.'" State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of
Health and Human Svcs., 2010 WL 4010119 at *36 fn.5, citing Obama: Requiring Health
Insurance is Not a Tax Increase, CNN, Sept. 29, 2009; see also George Stephanopoulos, Obama:
Mandate is Not a Tax, ABC News, Sept. 2009. To date, the President has not backed down from
his position that the mandate is not a tax; petitioners are thus in the unusual position of agreeing
with the President while his representatives in court are taking a position opposite to him.
Defendant argues that the mandate must be a tax because the penalty provision references
the Internal Revenue Code. Neither the Mandate=s placement in the Internal Revenue Code, nor
its inclusion in ASubtitle D B Miscellaneous Excise Taxes,@ may give rise to an inference or
presumption of legislative construction. See United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of
14
Utah, Inc., 518 U.S. 213, 222 (1996); 26 U.S.C. ' 7806(b) (providing that no inferences or
implications can be made based on the penalty=s placement). "Although the penalty is to be
placed in the Internal Revenue Code under the heading 'Miscellaneous Excise Taxes,' the plain
language of the Code itself states that this does not give rise to any inference or presumption that it
was intended to be a tax." State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs., 2010 WL
4010119 at *9, citing United States v. Reorganized CF & I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U.S.
213, 222-23 (1996) (citing to 26 U.S.C. § 7806(b), which provides that: “No inference,
implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the
location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title”).
If we were to follow Defendants' assertion that this provision is a tax, we are presented with
the logical question, what is it a tax upon? For example, the Act contains a section stating: “There
is hereby imposed on any indoor tanning service a tax." Excise Tax on Indoor Tanning Services,
§ 10907 (emphasis added). It is therefore clear that Congress imposed a tax upon the sale of
tanning services; likewise, the Act also states that "[t]here is hereby imposed on the sale of any
taxable medical device by the manufacturer, producer, or importer a tax," which it labeled as
"Excise Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers," § 1405 (emphasis added). So, with regard to the
individual mandate, what is being taxed? It is not a tax imposed on something that one buys, but
on something that one refuses to buy; it is not a tax upon economic activity, but a so-called "tax"
upon the refusal to engage in an economic activity. Ergo, if it were a tax, it would be a tax on
inactivity which, logically, is a tax on nothing at all. This result demonstrates the absurdity of
trying to characterize as a "tax" what is by definition a penalty.
The individual mandate=s penalty was not enacted as a Atax@ and this is dispositive.
Freemanville Water Sys. Inc. v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians, 563 F.3d 1205, 1209 (11th Cir.
15
2009) (A[W]here Congress knows how to say something but chooses not to, its silence is
controlling.@). Defendants treat Athe statutory label of the provision as a >penalty=@ as
inconsequential, Def. Mem. 30 n.12. But it is well settled that Awhen Congress uses different
language in similar sections it intends different meanings.@ DIRECTV, Inc. v. Brown, 371 F.3d
814, 818 (11th Cir. 2004).
Even Defendants characterize the penalty as generating only Asome revenue,@ Def. Mem.
30, and then only as an incident to some persons= failure to obey the law. See Rodgers v. United
States, 138 F.2d 992, 994 (6th Cir. 1943) (if regulation is statute=s primary purpose, Athe mere fact
that incidentally revenue is also obtained does not make the imposition a tax, but a sanction
imposed for the purpose of making effective the congressional enactment.@). Indeed, when this
so-called "tax" operates as intended, it raises no revenue at all, because it forces people to engage
in an economic activity that is then not taxed.
The Act itself refers to the individual mandate's penal enforcement mechanism as a
"penalty" repeatedly. Congress specifically called this provision a "penalty" eighteen different
times in Section 5000A alone; not one time in over 2,700 pages did Congress ever refer to it as a
"tax." Contemporaneous legislative history confirms that Congress enacted a Apenalty@ and not
a Atax.@ Congress=s Joint Committee on Taxation (AJCT@), which analyzes the effects of proposed
taxes,4 and on which Defendants rely, Def. Mem. 30, consistently refers to the penalty as a
Apenalty@ in its technical explanation of the law.5 The JCT also conspicuously fails to estimate
4
See JCT, Overview of Revenue Estimating Procedures and Methodologies Used by
the Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCX-1-05), February 2, 2005, at 2. Defendants
admit that the JCT staff is Aclosely involved with every aspect of the legislative process . . . .@ Def.
Mem. 51 n.24.
5
See JCT, Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the AReconciliation
16
any revenue from the penalty B whereas it dutifully scored the PPACA=s numerous other
provisions imposing true taxes. Defendants, of course, cite Congressional Budget Office
(ACBO@) estimates, but the CBO Ahas responsibility for scoring the budget effects of non-tax
legislation.@ See JCX-1-05, at 16. Congress enacted a penalty, as it clearly intended and
understood, and not a Atax.@
As the October 14, 2010 opinion in State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of HHS also points out,
Congress’s failure to call the penalty a “tax” is especially significant in light of the fact that the Act
itself imposes a number of taxes in several other sections. 2010 WL 4010119 at *8. "This shows
beyond question that Congress knew how to impose a tax when it meant to do so. Therefore, the
strong inference and presumption must be that Congress did not intend for the “penalty” to be a
tax." 2010 WL 4010119 at *8, citing Hodge v. Muscatine County, 196 U.S. 276 (1905) (where
the statute uses “tax” in one section and “penalty” in another, courts “cannot go far afield” in
treating the exaction as it is called; to do otherwise “would be a distortion of the words
employed”), and (“It is well settled that ‘[w]here Congress includes particular language in one
section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that
Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.’). As the Fifth
Act of 2010,@ as amended, in combination with the APatient Protection and Affordable Care Act@
(JCX-18-10), March 21, 2010, at 31-34. (t\The JCT fails to call the penalty a Apenalty@ only in a
heading.) Not surprisingly, weeks after a number of states filed lawsuits to challenge the PPACA,
the JCT amended this Technical Explanation, in Errata for JCX-18-10 (JCX-27-10), May 4, 2010,
at 2, only then referring to the penalty as a Anew excise tax.@ Such after-the-fact Alegislative
history@ is not indicative of the Congressional intent. See, e.g., Gustafon v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S.
561, 579 (1995) (AMaterial not available to the lawmakers is not considered, in the normal course,
to be legislative history. After-the-fact statements . . . are not a reliable indicator of what
Congress intended when it passed the law.@); Clarke v. Sec. Indus. Ass=n, 479 U.S. 388, 407 (1987)
(Supreme Court gives little weight to legislative history entered 10 days after enactment of
legislation); Cobell v. Nortoh, 428 F.3d 1070, 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (Apost-enactment legislative
history is not only oxymoronic but inherently entitled to little weight@).
17
Circuit has put it:
“[W]here Congress includes particular language in one section of a

statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally
presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the
disparate inclusion or exclusion”. [Citations omitted]. Congress,
by requiring remand in subpart (d)(3), obviously knew how to
require it for (d)(2); it did not do so. That silence is deafening for
purposes of our analysis.
Garcia v. United States, 88 F.3d 318, 324 (5th Cir. 1996) (emphasis added); see also Duncan v.
Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 173, (2001) (stating that this rule of statutory construction "is well settled").
Likewise, Congress clearly knew how to characterize the enforcement mechanism as a tax, if it had
wanted to. Congress's silence - i.e., its complete failure to ever refer to the mandate enforcement
mechanism as a "tax" in over two thousand pages of text - is deafening indeed, utterly drowning
out Defendant's argument that the mandate enforcement mechanism is anything other than what
Congress called it eighteen times: a "penalty."
Indeed, cases cited by Defendants do not support their spurious suggestion that the penalty
is a tax. Def. Mem. 28-31. Both Barr v. United States, 736 F.2d 1134, 1135 (7th Cir. 1984), and
Warren v. United States, 874 F.2d 280, 281 (5th Cir. 1989), involved efforts to enjoin collection of
penalties directly assessed for failing properly to pay an undisputed tax: falsely claiming a
withholding exemption in Barr, and refusing to sign a federal tax return in Warren. Those
penalties were essential to the collection of revenue (see United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22,
31-32 (1953), overruled in part on other grounds by Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39
(1968)), not extraneous to the government=s tax needs (Id. at 31), and clearly Asupportable as in aid
of a revenue purpose@ (Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, 513 (1937)). Here, however, the
penalty is not incidental to collecting a tax, but is a Ameans of enforcing . . . regulations@ that are
Aextraneous to any tax need.@ See Sonzinsky, 300 U.S. at 513; Kahriger,, 345 U.S. at 31. This
18
distinction is critical - as the courts often have recognized. See, e.g., United States v. La Franca,
282 U.S. 568, 572 (1931) (Anotwithstanding they are called taxes, [they] are in their nature also
penalties . . . the exaction here in question is not a true tax, but a penalty involving the idea of
punishment for infraction of the law@); Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (The Child labor Tax Case),
259 U.S. 20, 36 (1922) (a tax may involve an incidental regulatory restraint but a penalty actually
regulates). Rodgers, 138 F.2d at 994 (if primary purpose is regulatory, incidental revenue does
not Amake the imposition a tax@); Lipke v. Lederer, 259 U.S. 557, 561-62 (1922) (allowing
challenge to penalties under Prohibition Act); Regal Drug Corp. v. Wardell, 260 U.S. 386, 391-92
(1922) (same); Mobile Republican Assembly v. United States, 353 F.3d 1357, 1361 (11th Cir. 2003)
(analyzing whether provision was penalty or tax for AIA purposes).
Defendants also cite the Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 (1894) and Bd. of Trustees v.
United States, 289 U.S. 48 (1933), arguing that the Constitution=s apportionment requirements do
not apply to penalties enacted under the commerce power. Def. Mem. 55-57. Of course, such
penalties were not subject to appportionment because they were not taxes at all. In the Head
Money Cases, Congress did not exercise its taxing power, but penalized Aincident to the regulation
of commerce.@ 112 U.S. at 595. In Bd. of Trustees, the Supreme Court held that Acustoms
duties@ were not subject to tax-limiting doctrines, because they also were imposed pursuant to the
Commerce Clause. 289 U.S. at 58-59. The Rodgers Court held that revenues derived from
penalties aimed at regulating interstate commerce Ado not divest the regulation of its commerce
character and render it an exercise of the taxing power.@ 138 F.2d at 995. Defendants= argument
demonstrates precisely why the mandate=s penalty is not a tax subject to the Anti-Injunction Act.
19
Defendants= reliance on Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725, 741 n.12 (1974), also is
misplaced. Def. Mem. 12,30. That case did not involve the critical distinction between a Atax@
and a Apenalty@ at issue here, but rather whether the AIA applied to a challenge involving the
withdrawal of an entity=s tax-exempt status. The Court itself noted that the suit was Aaimed at the
imposition of federal income, FICA and FUTA taxes which clearly are intended to raise revenue.@
Id. In contrast, the individual mandate is neither a regulatory or a revenue-raising tax at all, but a
regulation enforced by a non-tax penalty.
In short, Petitioners believe that the President of the United States, Congress and even the
text of the Act itself are all correct: the penalty is a penalty, not a tax. Of course, the clearly
established fact that the mandate is not a tax is important not only to standing under the
Anti-Injunction Act, it also shows that the mandate is not valid as an exercise of Congress=s power
to Alay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the
common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.@ We address that particular question
in more depth infra.
IV. THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE EXCEEDS CONGRESS=S POWERS AND

VIOLATES THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS AND CORE
PRINCIPLES OF FEDERALISM.
By enacting the individual mandate, Congress has exceeded its legislative authority under
Article I. Neither its commerce and taxing powers, nor the Necessary and Proper Clause, affords
Congress the power to coerce citizens B under threat of penalty B into the stream of commerce,
thereby subjecting them to its regulation. This unprecedented assertion of unbridled authority
usurps powers reserved to the States by the Tenth Amendment, disparages the rights of other
20
citizens protected by the Ninth Amendment, and completely obliterates this Nation=s unique
system of dual sovereignty.
Because Article I provides no authority to Congress to enact the individual mandate, the
power to make such individual healthcare insurance decisions rests with the States or individuals
themselves. As the Supreme Court has observed, the AUnited States is entirely a creature of the
Constitution@ and Ait can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the
Constitution.@ Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1957) (Black, J.) (plurality opinion). Whatever
authority the people refused to delegate to the federal government remained with them or their
States. This basic principle is enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, which declares that all powers
neither delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the States Aare reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.@ Thus, as the Court noted in New York v. United States, the
Constitution=s structures creates Aessentially a tautology . . . . The Tenth Amendment confirms that
the power of the Federal Government is subject to limits that may, in a given instance, reserve
power to the States.@ New York, 505 U.S. at 157.
The Ninth Amendment complements recent cases recognizing limits on federal power, and
itself calls into question the constitutionality of the individual mandate and other PPACA
provisions. The Supreme Court has recognized that the Ninth Amendment Aunambiguously
refer[s] to individual rights.@ District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2790 (2008).
Here, the mandate clearly denies or disparages individual rights retained by the people, including
their right to self-government through the States. The Guarantee Clause further complements the
Adual sovereignty@ in our constitutional system by directing the federal government to Aguarantee
to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.@ U.S. Const. art. IV, ' 4. This
21
guarantee operates alongside the Constitution=s principle of federalism to preserve the States and
their independence from the federal government. Each State Ais entitled to order the processes of
its own governance.@ Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 752 (1999). AIndeed, having the power to
make decisions and to set policy is what gives the State its sovereign nature.@ FERC v.
Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 761 (1982). While the question of whether Guarantee Clause claims
are justiciable was briefly noted in New York, 505 U.S. at 185, the Supreme Court nevertheless
proceeded to analyze the challenged federal legislation under the clause, concluding that the clause
was not violated there because ACongress offers the States a legitimate choice rather than issuing
an unavoidable command.@ Id. The same cannot be said here of the PPACA.
The PPACA violates this constitutional system of dual sovereignty and federalist
principles by eliminating the ability of individuals to make critical healthcare decisions for
themselves (or through their States). Because systemic safeguards in the Tenth Amendment,
Article I, and the Guarantee Clause protect the States from precisely the kind of federal incursion
attempted with the individual mandate and corresponding mandates on the States, the Act cannot
be upheld.
A. Every Act of Congress Must Have a Constitutional Source.
The federal government is one of delegated, enumerated, and thus limited powers, as
eloquently explained by the Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez:
We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of

enumerated powers. As James Madison wrote, the powers delegated by the
proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those
which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. This
constitutionally mandated division of authority was adopted by the Framers to
ensure protection of our fundamental liberties. Just as the separation and
independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to
prevent the accumulation of excessive power in any one branch, a healthy balance
of power between the States and the Federal Government will reduce the risk of
22
tyranny and abuse from either front.
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 552 (1995) (citations and quotations omitted). See also
M=Culloch, 17 U.S. at 405 (AThis government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated
powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it . . . is now universally
admitted.@). It is axiomatic that Aour Constitution establishes a system of dual sovereignty
between the states and the federal Government.@ See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 458
(1991). The Supreme Court recognized and affirmed this fundamental principle from the earliest
days of the Republic, as Chief Justice Marshall famously observed: AThe powers of the legislature
are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is
written.@ Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 176 (1803). Our system of dual
sovereignty is reflected in numerous constitutional provisions, and not only those, like the Tenth
Amendment, that speak to the point explicitly. In fact, the concept of state sovereignty is implicit
in the Constitution=s conferral upon Congress of not all governmental powers, but only the few,
discrete and enumerated ones contained in Article I, Section 8.
It is an implication rendered express by the Tenth Amendment=s assertion that A[t]he
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.@ The Tenth Amendment affirms the
undeniable notion that under our Constitution, the federal government is one of enumerated, hence
limited, powers. See, e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 (Wheat.) 316, 405 (1819) (AThis government
is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers@). Powers not delegated to the federal
government are reserved to the states or to the people.
The structure of the Constitution reflects the federalist values of the document=s framers
23
and is inconsistent with any interpretation of the Commerce Clause that would grant Congress
unlimited power. The framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon
and through the states and instead designed a system in which the state and federal governments
would exercise concurrent authority over the people, who were, in Alexander Hamilton=s words,
Athe only proper objects of government.@ Accordingly, the federal government may act only
where the Constitution authorizes it to do so. See, e.g., New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144
(1992). To ensure that these fundamental limits are applied, A[e]very law enacted by Congress
must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated in the Constitution.@ United States v.
Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 607 (2000). Article I begins: AAll legislative powers herein granted
shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.@ U.S. Const. art. I, ' 1 (emphasis added). The
Commerce Clause obviously does not grant Congress the power to enact the individual health
insurance mandate.
B. The individual mandate is impermissible under the Commerce Clause.
Congress=s power to regulate ACommerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
States, and with the Indian Tribes,@ U.S. Const. art. I, ' 8, has been the subject of litigation for
close to two centuries. See, e.g., Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824); Gonzales v.
Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). What is clear from recent cases, however, is that, Aeven under our
modern, expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause, Congress=s regulatory authority is not
without bounds.@ United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 608 (2000). Further, in order for an
activity to be the subject of regulation under the Commerce Clause, Ait must be some sort of
economic endeavor,@ id. at 611 (emphasis added), not merely an economic decision.
The Supreme Court has held that Congress may regulate the use of the channels of
24
interstate commerce, the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate
commerce, even though they may come only from intrastate activities, and Congress may even
regulate activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce. United States v. Lopez,
514 U.S. 549, 558 (1995). The vast array of economic activities subject to regulation have always
been just that B activities. The Court has never held that the Commerce Clause empowers
Congress to regulate inactivity. The PPACA does not merely purport to regulate how people buy
health insurance, or the price they pay, or the terms of the contracts. Instead, it does what
Congress has never before dared to do B it mandates that individuals affirmatively engage in
economic activity where they might otherwise choose not to.
If the individual mandate of the PPACA is allowed to stand, it will open the door to a
sweeping expansion of federal power. In the future, Congress will not only be able to dictate the
terms under which individuals purchase health insurance or health care services, but also details of
a patient=s care, including preventative health procedures such as regular exercise and vitamin
supplements. If Congress can compel one sort of economic activity that is seen as desirable for
the public good, why not another? Ultimately, if Congress were deemed to have Constitutional
power to compel the purchase of goods and services, there could be no principled limit to such a
power.
It is axiomatic Constitutional law that Congress has only specific, enumerated powers, and
that the police power is reserved to the states. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 567; see also United States v.
Comstock, 560 U.S. ____, 130 S. Ct. 1949, 176 L. Ed. 2d 878 (2010). In order to find ' 1501 to be
within the bounds of Congress=s powers under the Commerce Clause, it would be necessary to
depart from this settled principle of law, and A[p]ile inference upon inference that would bid fair to
convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort
25
retained by the States.@ Lopez, 514 U.S. at 567.
Interestingly, both the Petitioners and the Defendants rely on the Supreme Court=s most
recent Commerce Clause case, Gonazles v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005). Raich provides no support
for the Defendants= position and in fact demonstrates that Congress=s power under the Commerce
Clause is limited to the regulation of voluntary economic activity.
In Raich the Supreme Court considered whether Congress had the power under the
Commerce Clause to regulate the purely local cultivation and use of marijuana. Id. at 5.
Distinguishing Lopez and Morrison, the Court held that in those cases, the activities which
Congress had impermissibly sought to regulate (possession of firearms near a school in Lopez and
gender-motivated violence in Morrison) were fundamentally non-economic in nature and thus
outside the scope of the Commerce Clause. Id. at 24-25. In contrast, the Court concluded that
the cultivation of marijuana was in fact economic in nature, and thus local cultivation and
consumption were subject to regulation where it was part of a larger scheme to regulate interstate
commerce. Id. at 22. (AThat the regulation ensnares some purely intrastate activity is of no
moment. As we have done many times before, we refuse to excise individual components of that
larger scheme.@)
Yet the Defendants make an unprecedented inferential leap from the conclusion in Raich to
the conclusion that Congress can compel Petitioners to purchase a package of goods and services
they neither want nor need. Def. Mem. 25-26. Such an inference is untenable. It is
undoubtedly true that the purchase of health insurance and other goods and services related to
health care are economic activity as contemplated by Raich. There is nothing in Raich, however,
nor in any other precedent, to support the radical proposition that Congress may compel anyone to
engage in such economic activity.
26
Defendants contend that individuals who choose to remain rationally uninsured while
young and healthy are Afree riders,@ because they choose not to engage in the economic activity of
purchasing health insurance they do not believe they need. This accusation betrays Constitutional
infirmity of the PPACA. Congress seeks to legislate far beyond its rightful Constitutional
authority in order to compel rational economic actors B individual citizens B to behave in a manner
they have concluded is not in their best interests. Fortunately, the Constitution provides limits on
the powers of the national government and a means of enforcing those limits.
Defendants= position that the individual mandate is a valid exercise of Congress=s
commerce power depends entirely upon the incredible contention that inactivity B the failure to
have healthcare insurance B constitutes economic activity in the form of a Avolitional economic
decision@ itself subject to federal regulation. Def. Mem. 27-28. But no court ever has upheld so
sweeping an assertion of federal power. To do so would arm Congress with unbridled top-down
control over virtually every aspect of persons= lives, as consumers and producers, and destroy this
nation=s defining legacy of dual sovereignty, thereby transforming our federal government from
one of limited, enumerated powers into one of limitless authority over states and their citizens.
Nowhere in the historical record is there any indication whatsoever that the Framers of the
Constitution ever contemplated the federal government having the power under the Commerce
Clause B or any other clause B to compel a citizen to purchase a good or service from another
citizen or private entity.
The mandatory insurance purchasing provision and enforcement mechanism at issue in this
matter establish the kind of national police power the United States Supreme Court has always
rejected. AAs the courts have always recognized, the text of the Constitution does not grant
27
Congress a general >police power= to pass any legislation it may deem to be in the public interest.
Instead, the Constitution confines Congress to its enumerated powers and allows it to execute
those powers by means of laws that are >necessary and proper.=@ Randy E. Barnett, Is the
Rehnquist Court an AActivist Court? The Commerce Clause Cases, 73 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1275,
1281 (2002). See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 584 (Thomas, J. concurring.)
(AAlthough we supposedly applied the substantial effects test for the past 60 years, we always have
rejected readings of the Commerce Clause and the scope of federal power that would permit
Congress to exercise a police power; our cases are quite clear that there are real limits to federal
power,@ citing New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 155 (1992)) (emphasis added).
ABy assigning the Federal Government power over >certain enumerated objects only,= the
Constitution >leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other
objects.= The Federalist No. 39 (J. Madison). The purpose of this design is to preserve the
>balance of power between the States and the Federal Government . . . [that] protect[s] our
fundamental liberties.=@ United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. ____,130 S. Ct. at 1982 (Thomas J.,
dissenting) (quoting Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528, 572
(Powell, J. dissenting)).
To reach its conclusion that the individual mandate scheme is permissible and that the
Petitioners= complaint should be dismissed outright, Defendants twists a pretzel out of the
enumerated interstate commerce power B one where marketplace inactivity becomes marketplace
activity in order to justify the exercise of an obvious police power to compel individual, private
conduct. As such, Defendants seeks not the appropriate use of its police power but, instead,
unfettered police power, the limits of which Defendants themselves cannot even define.
28
C. Congress=s Commerce power does not reach inactivity.
The Constitution gives Congress the power A[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign nations,
and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes[,]@ U.S. Const., Art. I, ' 8, effectively
allowing it to superintend the Nation=s commercial and economic activities. However, its power
to regulate activity does not permit Congress to forbid inactivity. Congress may not order
inactive Americans to buy, sell, manufacture, grow, or distribute any product or service against
their will. According to the CBO, no federal court ever has upheld such a limitless exercise of the
commerce power: AThe government has never required people to buy any good or service as a
condition of lawful residence in the United States.@ Robert Hartman & Paul Van de Water, AThe
Budgetary Treatment of an individual mandate to Buy Health Insurance,@ CBO Memo., at 1,
August 1994.
In United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), the Court identified three broad categories
of activities that Congress may regulate under its Commerce Clause power:
First, Congress may regulate the use of the channels of interstate commerce.
Second, Congress is empowered to regulate and protect the instrumentalities of
interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the
threat may come only from intrastate activities. Finally, Congress=s commerce
authority includes the power to regulate those activities having a substantial
relation to interstate commerce . . . .
Id. at 558-59 (emphasis added). Applying these principles, the Court held that A[t]he possession
of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition
elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce.@ Id. at 567 (emphasis added).
Similarly, in United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000), the Court applied the same
three-category analysis and struck down the challenged provision of the Violence Against Women
Act because A[g]ender-motivated crimes of violence are not, in any sense of the phrase, economic
29
activity. Id. at 613 (emphasis added). It concluded; AWe accordingly reject the argument that
Congress may regulate noneconomic, violent criminal conduct based solely on that conduct=s
aggregate effect on interstate commerce.@ Id. at 617 (emphasis added).
It bears emphasizing that the conduct at issue in Lopez and Morrison, although
non-economic and unreachable under the Commerce Clause, was nonetheless activity voluntarily
engaged in by the parties. In this key respect, the inactivity which Congress here seeks to regulate
is even further removed from its legitimate commerce power.
Defendants rely heavily on Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005), and Wickard v. Filburn,
317 U.S. 111 (1942). However, both cases upheld regulation of economic activity. In Raich, the
Court=s most recent Commerce Clause decision, it upheld application of the federal Controlled
Substances Act (CSA) to the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana for medical
purposes because those activities were economic in character and, at least in the aggregate, had a
substantial effect on interstate commerce:
Our case law firmly establishes Congress= power to regulate purely local activities
that are part of an economic Aclass of activities@ that have a substantial effect on
interstate commerce. . . . As we stated in Wickard, >even if appellee=s activity be
local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its
nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on
interstate commerce= . . . . When Congress decides that the >total incidence= of a
practice poses a threat to a national market, it may regulate the entire class.
Id. at 26 (emphasis added) (citing Wickard, in which the Court held that the activity of growing
wheat for personal consumption was subject to regulation). The Raich Court, in discussing how
the CSA Adirectly regulates economic, commercial activity,@ defined the term Aeconomics@ to refer
to Athe production, distribution, and consumption of commodities.@ 545 U.S. at 17. In every
respect B whether one is making, transferring, or using a good of service B economics refers to
30
activity, not inactivity. Indeed, in the absence of activity, the term would be devoid of meaning.
In fact, the Asubstantial economic effect@ Commerce Clause cases since Jones & Laughlin
Steel consistently refer only to Aactivities.@ See, e.g., NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel, 301 U.S. at
37 (Aintrastate activities, by reason of close and intimate relation to interstate commerce, may fall
within federal control@); Darby, 312 U.S. at 118 (Athose activities intrastate which so affect
interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make regulation of them
appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end@); United States v. Wrightwood Dairy, 315
U.S. 110, 119 (1942) (Aintrastate activities which in a substantial way interfere with or obstruct the
exercise of the granted power@); Wickard, 317 U.S. at 125 (Aeven if appellee=s activity be local, and
though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by
Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce@); Perez, 402 U.S. at 150
(Aactivities affecting commerce@); Lopez, 514 U.S. at 558 (Athree broad categories of activity that
Congress may regulate under its commerce power@); Morrison, 529 U.S. at 698 (Athree broad
categories of activity@) (quoting Lopez); Raich, 545 U.S. at 17 (Aactivities that substantially affect
interstate commerce.@). Consequently, in order to render conduct unlawful under the Commerce
Clause, Congress must be regulating interstate commerce, not merely inactivity. Congress
cannot, under the guise of regulating interstate commerce, legislate beyond its delegated authority.
And Congress=s regulation of intrastate activity must reach activity that has a real and Asubstantial
economic effect on interstate commerce.@ See Perez, 402 U.S. at 152 (quoting Wickard, 317 U.S.
at 125). The individual mandate to purchase insurance, discussed infra, goes well beyond the
bounds of the Commere Clause.
Ironically, Defendants cannot help but use the words Aactivities,@ Aactivity,@ and Aconduct,@
31
Def. Mem. 16-19; 24-28, in searching for support. They completely misread Heart of Atlanta
Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), and Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969), as
supporting their position. But both cases involved commercial establishments offering goods or
services to the public: an inn Aserv[ing] interstate travelers@ in Heart of Atlanta, 379 U.S. at 261;
a restaurant Aoffer[ing] . . . food [that] has moved in commerce@ in Daniel, 395 U.S. at 304. As
stated in State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs., neither case fairly can be read
to permit Congress to require activity by someone who is inactive. In both instances, the
defendants could have opted not to engage in any commerce; it was their own commercial activity
which subjected them to congressional regulation:
There are several obvious ways in which Heart of Atlanta and

Wickard differ markedly from this case, but I will only focus on
perhaps the most significant one: the motel owner and the farmer
were each involved in an activity (regardless of whether it could
readily be deemed interstate commerce) and each had a choice to
discontinue that activity. . . . Those cases, in other words, involved
activities in which the plaintiffs had chosen to engage. All Congress
was doing was saying that if you choose to engage in the activity of
operating a motel or growing wheat, you are engaging in interstate
commerce and subject to federal authority
State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs., 2010 WL 4010119 at *34. Congress
was not regulating whether or not to serve food or provide lodging, merely regulating how those
activities could be carried out. Thus, the Lopez Court itself cited Heart of Atlanta Motel as a case
Awhere we have concluded that the activity substantially affected interstate commerce.@ Lopez,
514 U.S. at 557 (emphasis added).
D. The individual mandate does not regulate commerce, it compels commerce.
The individual mandate does not regulate economic activity, but compels it by forcing
32
individuals who lack a congressionally dictated level of healthcare coverage B particularly those
who would not qualify for Medicaid even under the Act=s greatly expanded eligibility criteria B
into the insurance market. In this crucial respect, the mandate is unlike any legislation ever
upheld under the Commerce Clause.
Defendants assert that not having insurance is reachable under the commerce power
because it is an Aeconomic decision.@ But a decision is purely a mental process which may, or
may not, result in activity (economic or otherwise), depending on the decision. A decision to do
nothing does not covert nothing to something. Zero multiplied by any number still equals zero.
Defendants cannot fill that void with references to congressional concern over Amarket timing@ and
Apremium spirals.@ Def. Mem. 25-26. Under Defendants= logic, any failure to buy B or sell B
particular goods or services is both a regulable prelude to future economic activity and a decision
Congress can reach because it impacts the existing marketplace.6 Thus, the continued ownership
of a home is transformed into a Adecision@ not to sell, which then can be characterized as an
Aeconomic activity,@ which Congress therefore can mandate. Such logic, which leads to an
7
infinite commerce power, finds no support in any case decision.
Moreover, Congress=s conclusion Athat a particular activity substantially affects interstate
commerce does not necessarily make it so . . . .@ Lopez, 514 U.S. at 557 n.2. This is Aultimately
6
Defendants cannot settle on a consistent alchemy to transform inactivity into
activity. At times, they contend that the decision not to buy insurance is a properly regulable
Avolitional event,@ Def. Mem. 24-28; but at other times they imply that a presumed later use of
healthcare services renders a current failure to buy insurance regulable acitvity, Id. at 24-28.
Both positions are nonsensical.
7
Indeed, even in industries such as securities trading, where Congress presumably
could preempt State regulation, the power to regulate commerce never has been construed to allow
Congress to compel inactive individuals to purchase stocks or bonds.
33
a judicial rather than a legislative question,@ id., and the Supreme Court has expressed concern
over any instance in which Congress piles Ainference upon inference@ as a basis Ato convert
congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained
by the States.@ Id. at 567. See also United States v. Comstock, 130 S. Ct. 1949, 1967 (2010)
(Kennedy, J. concurring) (AThe rational basis referred to in the Commerce Clause context is a
demonstrated link in fact, based on empirical demonstration.@). Here, Congress only can connect
an individual=s lack of healthcare insurance with the supposed need for the mandate to regulate
interstate insurance markets through a series of unsubstantiated and unquantifiable inferences and
assumptions, some expressed and other implied (even if unacknowledged), about human behavior
and its effects.8 This attenuated chain simply is too long and fragile to constitute the Asubstantial
relation to interstate commerce@ required by Lopez.
More fundamentally, accepting Defendants= position would make it impossible to maintain
any outer limits on the commerce power. See Lopez, 514 U.S. at 557. It would permit Congress,
upon the flimsiest of nexuses, itself to manufacture the basis on which it can regulate anyone at any
time. Such a ruling would transform our nation beyond recognition. The Commerce Clause
makes no distinction between one type of economic activity and another. Nor does it distinguish
between demand (buying) and supply (producing and selling) activities. Every decision
individuals make, at some remote level of analysis, can be said to have economic purposes or
8
These include assumptions that: (1) everyone at some point in life will consume
healthcare services; (2) to save money, some persons who can afford healthcare insurance decide
not to buy it; (3) some of these persons will not pay for healthcare services they consume; (4) some
of these persons get away without being pursued for payment by their healthcare providers, who
instead pass the costs on to other patients, providers, and insurers; (5) this passing on increases the
aggregate cost of healthcare services, driving up the cost of insurance premiums; (6) the Act will
drive up premium costs (especially by its requirement that insurers ignore preexisting conditions);
and (7) the Individual Mandate will reduce premiums costs.
34
consequences.
If Congress can compel Americans to buy healthcare insurance, then it can compel them to
buy B or to make or sell B any good or service, based on a finding that such compulsion will assist
its efforts to achieve some desired Aeconomic@ result. Congress could force citizens to buy
government-acquired manufacturers= cars and government-rescued banks= financial instruments,
or to work in any industry and on whatever terms it chooses. Even in NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin
Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1 (1937), in which the Court abandoned its earlier efforts to restrict New
Deal legislation, it warned that a Congress armed with excessive powers under the Commerce
Clause would threaten our system of federalism and bring about Aa completely centralized
government.@ Id. at 37 (and quoted in Lopez, 514 U.S. at 557). The PPACA underscores the
prescience of that warning.
V. THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS NOT A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF THE

CONSTITUTION=S NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE.
Defendants turn to the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Alast, best hope of those who
defend ultra vires Congressional action.@ Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 923 (1997). But
that clause cannot rescue the individual mandate, because it is not a means of implementing a
constitutionally enumerated power and it fails under the considerations recently described by the
U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Comstock.
A. The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without
prior precedent, and the Necessary and Proper Clause does not create this
power in and of itself.
This issue was recently addressed in-depth by the court in State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of
Health and Human Svcs. In ruling against the Defendants, the court stated bluntly that "this is not
35
even a close call." In so doing, the court found:
At this stage in the litigation, this is not even a close call. I have read
and am familiar with all the pertinent Commerce Clause cases, from
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824), to
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed.2d 1
(2005). I am also familiar with the relevant Necessary and Proper
Clause cases, from M'Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316,
4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), to United States v. Comstock, - U.S. -, 130 S.Ct.
1949, 176 L.Ed.2d 878 (2010). This case law is instructive, but
ultimately inconclusive because the Commerce Clause and
Necessary and Proper Clause have never been applied in such a
manner before. The power that the individual mandate seeks to
harness is simply without prior precedent.
State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs., 2010 WL 4010119 at *34 (N. D. Fla.).
While it is true that the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress broad authority to pass laws
in furtherance of constitutionally-enumerated powers, it has also been settled since McCulloch v.
Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), that the clause may not substitute for powers the Constitution
denied Congress, or empower Congress to violate rights otherwise protected by the Constitution,
e.g., by the Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments:
Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the

constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly
adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the
letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.
Id. at 421 (emphasis added). See Raich, 545 U.S. at 39 (Scalia, J. concurring) (McCulloch=s limits
of Congress=s power under the clause Aare not merely hortatory@).
A[I]n determining whether the Necessary and Proper Clause grants Congress the legislative
authority to enact a particular federal statute, we look to see whether the statute constitutes a means
that is rationally related to the implementation of a constitutionally enumerated power.@
Comstock, 130 S. Ct. at 1956 (emphasis added). The clause only allows Congress authority to
enact a statute that is Alegitimately predicated on an enumerated power[,]@ and only so long as the
36
relationship between the statute as the means and the enumerated power as the end is Anot too
attenuated.@ Id. at 1963-64.
The individual mandate does not implement or effectuate any enumerated power.
Congress seeks coverage for uninsured Americans by ordering everyone to be covered. The Act=s
ultimate goal (universal coverage) and the substance of its mandate (requiring all to get coverage)
are the same. The mandate is not a means to the exercise of an enumerated power, but an end and
a novel exercise of power to compel the American people. Significantly, in those rare instances in
which Congress has imposed affirmative obligations on persons based solely upon their being
citizens or residents, it has done so not by claiming expanded power over commerce or general
health and welfare B much less by invocation of the Necessary and Proper Clause B but based on
explicit constitutional authority. See, e.g., Selective Service Cases, 245 U.S. 366, 383, 390 (1918)
(conscription into armed services justified by power Ato raise and support Armies@ under U.S.
Const. art. I, ' 8, cl. 12); Morales v. Daley, 116 F. Supp. 2d 801 (S.D. Tex. 2000), aff=d, 275 F.3d
45 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1135 (2002) (compelling answers to census questions
justified by U.S. Const. art. I, ' 2, cl. 3). The Necessary and Proper Clause is not an independent
source of authority for such a policy goal, and therefore cannot validate the individual mandate.
B. The individual mandate fails under the Comstock factors.
Comstock clearly underscores that the Necessary and Proper Clause cannot save the
mandate. Examination of the five Aconsiderations@ relied on by the Court, in determining that the
clause permitted the civil commitment of sexually dangerous former federal inmates, confirms that
the individual mandate B unlike the law at issue in Comstock B is by no means a Adiscreet and
narrow exercise of authority over a small class of persons already subject to the federal power.@
130 S. Ct. at 1968 (Kennedy, J. concurring).
37
First, the relevant enactment must be a rational means to implement an otherwise proper
exercise of an enumerated power, not an end in itself. Id. at 1956. But, as explained above, the
individual mandate is not a means to a proper end. It stands alone as the Act=s unseverable
centerpiece, from which the other provisions flow.
Second, in sharp contrast to the long federal history (more than 150 years) of enacting and
enforcing criminal laws, detaining prisoners, and providing them with mental health services
present in Comstock, Congress has no history of directing Americans= individual healthcare or
insurance decisions. Any authority for such requirements resides solely in the States as
sovereigns, as part of that general police power Awhich the State[s] did not surrender when
becoming member[s] of the Union under the Constitution.@ Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S.
11, 25, (1905).9
Comstock turned in large part on the historical fact that the federal role in establishing a
prison system in America enjoyed ancient roots. Writing for the majority, Justice Breyer relied
on a Alongstanding federal statutory framework, which had been in place since 1855.@ Comstock,
2010 WL 1946729, at *10. This deep tradition of federal involvement in establishing a penal
system weighed in favor of the statute at issue. Defendants in turn argue that Athe Supreme Court
has long recognized Congress=s power to regulate in this area.@ Def. Mem. 19-20. The settled
historical record, however, is that Congress's involvement in healthcare is rather short compared to
the lengthy history of federal involvement at issue in Comstock: AFederal involvement in health
9
Significantly, past mandates requiring citizens to have insurance have been
grounded in the States= police powers. See Ex parte Poresky, 290 U.S. 30, 32 (1933) (automobile
insurance). This also is true of the individual mandate enacted by Massachusetts B Mass. Gen.
Laws ch. 111M, ' 2 (2008); see also Fountas v. Comm=r of Dep=t of Rev., 2009 WL 3792468
(Mass. Sup. Ct. Feb. 6, 2009), aff=d, 922 N.E.2d 862 (Mass. App. Ct. 2009) B which Congress
admittedly emulated here. See PPACA ' 1501(a)(2)(D).
38
is a fairly new occurrence in U.S. history.@ Jennie Jacobs Kronenfeld, The Changing Federal
Role in U.S. Health Care Policy, 67 (Praeger Publishers, 1997) (emphasis added). AWhile a few
laws and special concerns were passed prior to the twentieth century, the bulk of the federal health
legislation that has health impact . . . has actually been passed in the past 50 or so years.@ Id.
Indeed, modern healthcare in the United States Aoccupies a completely different place in the
economy, in the mind of the public, and in its impact on the government at all levels than it did 100
years ago, at the beginning of the twentieth century, or at the beginning of the country in the late
1700s, when the U.S. Constitution was adopted.@ Id. at 1.
Defendants concede that the earliest congressional legislation affecting the Abusiness of
insurance@ was passed within only the last thirty-six years. Based on this paltry legislative
pedigree, Defendants purport to rely on a Ahistory@ of federal regulation of the health insurance
market. Def. Mem. 19-20. In marked contrast, however, Comstock relied on a Alongstanding
federal statutory framework, which had been in place since 1855,@ just threescore and eight years
after the constitution was ratified. Comstock, 2010 WL 1946729, at *10.
More importantly, ' 1501 of the PPACA does not regulate health insurance providers.
Instead, as the Defendants must concede, the provision applies only to individuals. In other
words, the PPACA seeks to regulate uninsured people who, by definition, have no connection with
health insurance providers. Whatever the recent history of federal regulation of the health
insurance industry, the history of the federal government=s forcing uninsured Americans to
purchase health policies is nonexistent. Consistent with Comstock, the lack of any significant or
meaningful historical anchor for the novel power attempted by the PPACA weighs heavily against
the Defendants= claim of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
39
Third, no sound reason exists for the individual mandate in light of Congress=s lack of
authority to compel commerce, whether in regulating insurance, healthcare, or any other industry
or field of endeavor. Compelling activity differs fundamentally from simply regulating a market.
Fourth, the Comstock Court made clear that any exercise of power supportable under the
Necessary and Proper Clause must be consistent with the Constitution=s federal architecture, and
reaffirmed that the clause does not Aconfer on Congress a general Apolice power which the
Founders denied the National Government and reposed in the States . . . .@ Comstock, 130 S. Ct. at
1964. But, far from Aproperly account[ing] for state interests,@ id. at 1962, the individual mandate
can only be imposed through exercise of a police power, and it shreds the traditional federalism
guaranteed by Tenth Amendment. As shown below, the federal government has no right to
compel the States to commit their resources to accommodate the added costs stemming from the
individual mandate or from the PPACA=s unprecedented expansion of Medicaid, its insurance
exchanges and reinsurance requirements, and its expensive employer coverage provisions. See
Printz, 521 U.S. at 923-24 (AWhen a law . . . violates the principle of state sovereignty . . . it is not
a law . . . proper for carrying into Execution the Commerce Clause.@). Thus, the PPACA Ainvade[s]
state sovereignty [and] improperly limit[s] the scope of >powers that remain with the States.@=
Comstock, 130 S. Ct. at 1962.
Comstock hinged on the Supreme Court=s assurance that the federal statute at issue
Aproperly accounts for state interests.@ Comstock, 2010 WL 1946729, at *11. In its analysis of
the federal civil commitment statute, Comstock detailed the myriad ways in which the federal
government was required to cooperate with and defer to the state during the custody or transfer of
each federal prisoner. By requiring federal authorities to relinquish federal authority over the
40
prisoner whenever a state asserted its own, the statute deferred to the state=s desire to take control
of the prisoner. Id. at *12. Writing for the Court, Justice Breyer emphasized that the statute at
issue did not Ainvade state sovereignty or otherwise improperly limit the powers that remain with
the States,@ but rather required accommodation of state interests when facilitating the custody and
transfer of a federal prisoner. Id. at *11-12. In part due to its accommodation of state interests,
the statute in Comstock was upheld by the Supreme Court as a legitimate exercise of federal power.
Concurring with the majority, Justice Kennedy wrote separately to caution that A[i]t is of
fundamental importance to consider whether essential attributes of state sovereignty are
compromised by the assertion of federal power under the Necessary and Proper Clause; if so, that
is a factor suggesting that the power is not one properly within the reach of federal power.@ Id. at
*18 (Kennedy, J. concurring) (emphasis added). Because the statute at issue did Anot supersede
the right and responsibility of the States@ and Ainvolve[d] little intrusion upon the ordinary
processes and powers of the States,@ Justice Kennedy agreed that the federal civil commitment
statute was a Anecessary and proper@ exercise of congressional authority.
Unlike the statute at issue in Comstock, the PPACA's individual mandate fails entirely to
accommodate state interests. The PPACA gives the federal government sole authority to penalize
individuals for choosing not to obtain health insurance B in direct contravention of Constitutional
authority. Rather than cooperate with or defer to individuals= choices, the PPACA irreconcilably
collides with liberty. The PPACA contains neither a severability provision nor a provision
allowing individual states to opt out of ' 1501. Nor does it authorize the federal government to
relinquish control of health insurance coverage over to the states when asked to do so.
Accordingly, it cannot be said to accommodate state interests in any way. Consistent with
41
Comstock, the PPACA=s failure to accommodate state interests weighs heavily against Defendants=
claim of power under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Fifth, the individual mandate is not narrow in scope like the law upheld in Comstock, but
threatens to bring about fundamental and unprecedented change by centralizing top-down
economic power in Congress.10 The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot serve as a bootstrap by
which Congress may evade the constitutional limits on its enumerated powers.
In upholding Congress=s civil-commitment power, Comstock emphasized that the federal
statute at issue was a Anarrowly tailored means of pursuing the Government=s legitimate interest.@
Comstock, 2010 WL 1946729, at *14. Importantly, the Comstock statute was Anarrow in scope,@
Aapplied to only a small fraction of federal prisoners,@ and its reach was Alimited to individuals
already in the custody of the Federal Government.@ Id. at *2. Unlike Comstock, the PPACA is
not Aa discrete and narrow exercise of authority over a small class of persons.@ Id. at *19
(Kennedy, J. concurring).
The PPACA cannot possibly be said to be narrowly tailored or Anarrow in scope.@ Rather,
the PPACA seeks to force every uninsured American, under pain of monetary penalty, to purchase
private health insurance. This sweeping individual mandate applies to the rich and the poor, the
young and the old, and the healthy and the sick alike. Defendants insist that healthcare is unique
since everyone will need to purchase medical services at some point, Def. Mem. 24-26, but this
10
Defendants assert a need for such sweeping new power, but ignore other avenues
for Congress to achieve universal coverage through legitimate exercise of its enumerated powers,
such as tax incentives, or laws encouraging or requiring payment for services rendered, all creating
stronger incentives for uninsured persons to choose to buy coverage. Moreover, any relation the
mandate may have to the exercise of Aan enumerated Article I power@ is far Atoo attenuated@ for
Necessary and Proper Clause purposes. Id. at 1963 (quoting Lopex, 514 U.S. at 567). As
explained above, the mandate is separated by many degrees of speculation and inference from any
enumerated power.
42
argument only further exposes that the PPACA=s reach is truly unlimited and not narrowly
tailored. Indeed, based on the Defendants= position, there would be absolutely no principled rule
by which individuals retain a right to be left alone with respect to any subject susceptible to
economic regimentation nor would there be any possible way to say that any power of economic
regulation remained to the States to the exclusion of the federal government. Consequently, such
a result cannot be rooted in the Constitution.
Defendants argues that the individual mandate is Aessential@ to the overall health care
reform. Def. Mot. at 21-24. That may or may not be true; even supporters of the health care
reform see alternatives to the individual mandate. See, e.g., States Argue the Feds Can=t Force
Purchase of Health Insurance, Wash. Post, Mar. 25, 2010, at A20 (A[W]hile the goal of the
mandate is crucial to reform, the mandate isn=t the only way to achieve that goal.@). Regardless,
the real question is whether Congress has the power in the first place to do what it is doing. That
a statutory provision may be Aessential@ to some end is irrelevant to the question of whether the end
itself is constitutional. Raich does not stand for the broad proposition that Congress is free to pass
otherwise unconstitutional laws by somehow connecting them to a larger regulatory program.
Instead, Congress=s ability to regulate commerce B using the Necessary and Proper Clause to
execute Commerce Clause powers B extends to intrastate non-economic activity only insofar as
failure to regulate such activity would undercut a broad federal regulatory scheme. Gonzales v.
Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 17-18 (2005).
Neither Raich nor Wickard authorized Congress to regulate non-activity. AWhen the
inquiry is whether a federal law has sufficient links to an enumerated power to be within the scope
of federal authority, the analysis depends not on the number of links in the congressional-power
43
chain but on the strength of the chain.@ Comstock, 560 U.S. ___, 176 L. Ed. 2d at 900 (Kennedy,
J. concurring, slip op. at 1). Here Congress is not merely attempting to regulate local economic
activity that, in the aggregate, substantially affects commercial markets nationwide. Instead, it
claims the authority to force individuals not engaged in economic activity to become engaged:
[I]n this case we are dealing with something very different. The
individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice
and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual
mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based
on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is
based solely on citizenship and on being alive.
State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs., 2010 WL 4010119 *35 (emphasis
added). Because the power claimed here would alter the federal structure of the Constitution by
creating an unlimited power indistinguishable from a national police power, it cannot be a proper
use of the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Under the view advanced by the Defendants, the combination of the Commerce Clause and
the Necessary and Proper Clause would render the rest of Congress=s enumerated Article I powers
superfluous. In contrast to the statute upheld in Comstock, the PPACA is simply Atoo sweeping in
its scope.@ Comstock, 2010 WL 1946729, at *13. Fortunately, the Supreme Court understands
that Athere are . . . restraints upon the Necessary and Proper Clause authority. As Chief Justice
Marshall wrote in McCullough v. Maryland, even when the end is constitutional and legitimate,
the means must be Aappropriate@ and Aplainly adapted@ to that end. Moreover, they may not be
otherwise Aprohibited@ and must be Aconsistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution.@
These phrases are not merely hortatory. For example, cases such as Printz v. United States, 521
U.S. 898 (1997), and New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) affirm that a law is not
Aproper for carrying into Execution the Commerce Clause [w]hen [it] violates [a constitutional]
44
principle of state sovereignty@ Printz, supra, at 923-924; see also New York, supra, at 166; Raich,
at 39 (Scalia, J. concurring).
Thus, the question for this Court is not whether a private individual=s inactivity evidenced
by not purchasing health insurance is Acommerce@ or even Asubstantially affects commerce@ under
the Commerce Clause as Defendants wrongly argue. Also, the question is not whether
compelling an individual to purchase an insurance policy as required by the PPACA is necessary
to the successful implementation of the PPACA. Simply put, the real question is whether it is
appropriate and plainly adapted to an enumerated federal power for the federal government to
require an individual to purchase a good or service from another individual or private entity for any
purpose regardless of whether or not that purpose is necessary for carrying into execution a broad
federal government program. It is clear that Congress had numerous constitutional ways to
legislate a health care regime that would have achieved its intended purposes. The individual
mandate was not one of them. Rather than damage permanently our constitutional construct by
unleashing both intended and unintended consequences that fundamentally alter the nature of this
Republic, Congress must be required to consider legislative alternatives that do no violence to the
Constitution, yet advance its policy and political objectives.
In sum, absent a legitimate anchor to an enumerated congressional power under the
Constitution, Defendants cannot rely on the Necessary and Proper Clause to vindicate the
individual mandate. Because, after Comstock, only narrow, limited, and deeply historical claims
of congressional power will be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause, ' 1501 of the
PPACA cannot survive scrutiny. The Necessary and Proper Clause cannot confer on Congress a
vast, new power to legislate its desired end whenever it chooses to wave the commerce flag.
45
VI. THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER THE TAXING

AND SPENDING CLAUSE.
Defendants argue in the alternative that even if the mandate to purchase insurance under '
1501 is not a permissible exercise of Congress=s power under the Commerce Clause, it is valid as
an exercise of Congress=s power to Alay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the
Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.@ U.S.
Const. art. I, ' 8. Def. Mem. 28-31. This argument is unavailing.
A. Congress did not purport to pass the individual mandate pursuant to the
Constitution=s taxing power.
Importantly, Congress did not purport to pass the mandate to purchase insurance pursuant
to the taxing power. The Supreme Court has given weight to what power Congress purports to
exercise when it enacts legislation. In Sozinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 (1937), the Court
considered whether provisions of the National Firearms Act that provided for confiscatory
taxation of certain classes of firearms was a valid exercise of the taxing power. Concluding that,
on its face, the National Firearms Act appeared to be a valid tax, the Court held that it would not
look behind Congress=s purported exercise of the taxing power. Id. at 513. The import of this
case is that courts should not lightly disregard Congress=s purported motive in passing a piece of
legislation which appears valid on its face. Here, ' 1501 does not purport to be a tax. If
anything, Sozinsky supports the proposition that the Court should not ignore Congress=s claim that
the mandate is an exercise of power pursuant to the Commerce Clause.
But even if the Court were to conclude that it should analyze the mandate to purchase
insurance as if Congress had passed it pursuant to the taxing power, it would still be invalid.
Unlike the statute in Sozinsky, the statute here is not valid on its face. The Supreme Court=s
46
opinion in the Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U.S. 20 (1922), is instructive. There, an employer had
been assessed a 10% tax on its annual profits because it had employed a worker younger than
fourteen during the year. Id. at 34. The Court found that the statute in question was not on its
face a valid exercise of the taxing power. Id. at 44. The court considered several features of the
statute in reaching its conclusion. First, the Court found that it Aprovides a heavy exaction for a
departure from a detailed course of conduct in business.@ Id. at 36. Next, the Court found it
significant that Athe amount [was] not to be proportioned in any degree to the extent or frequency
of the departures, but [was] to be paid by the employer in full measure whether he employs five
hundred children for a year, or employs only one for a day.@ Id. Other factors were the presence
of a scienter requirement, where the violation had to be Aknowing@ and that the factory was subject
to inspection by the relevant regulatory authority. Id. at 37.
The features of the mandate to purchase insurance under ' 1501 are strikingly similar. By
calling the mandate a penalty, Congress has made it abundantly clear that its goal is to compel a
particular course of conduct. Further, the penalty is not proportional to the measure of the
violation B it is a flat penalty. It has no relationship to the cost the citizen would have to pay to
purchase the requisite insurance. It is assessed irrespective of the number of months during the
year an individual is without insurance. These striking similarities between the statute at issue in
the Child Labor Tax Case and the insurance mandate of the PPACA demonstrate that the mandate
is not a valid exercise of the taxing power on its face.
If Congress could pass a statute which imposes a monetary penalty in the guise of a tax on
persons who fail to affirmatively act by purchasing health insurance, what principled limit could
then be imposed on such a power? The General Welfare clause would become the new
Commerce Clause by which Congress could presumably assess many penalties against Americans
47
for failing to obtain annual physicals, to take preventative medications, or to undertake virtually
any other activity that could potentially interfere with a physician=s independent judgment or
assessment of a patient. Although Congress=s power to Alay and collect taxes@ is broad, Congress
cannot thwart Article I limitations and broaden that power simply by tucking a penalty into a
regulatory law:
If, in lieu of compulsory regulation of subjects within the states= reserved

jurisdiction, which is prohibited, the Congress could invoke the taxing and
spending power as a means to accomplish the same end, clause 1 of section 8 of
article 1 would become the instrument for total subversion of the governmental
powers reserved to the individual states.
United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 75 (1936); see also Dole, 483 U.S. at 216-17 (O=Connor, J.
dissenting) (Taxing and Spending Clause limits in Butler Aremain sound@).
Although taxes may have a regulatory effect, the Court has invalidated A[p]enalty
provisions in tax statutes added for breach of a regulation concerning activities in themselves
subject only to state regulation.@ Kahriger, 345 U.S. at 31 (citing Bailey, 259 U.S. at 34, 38). In
Bailey, the Court struck down, as an improper use of Congress=s taxing authority, a regulation
incorporated a 10 percent tax on employers for use of child labor. Id. at 34. The decision
distinguished permissible uses of the taxing power that serve legitimate tax purposes (a strong
regulatory aim also may be present) from taxes added to otherwise impermissible regulations as
penalties B the Aso-called tax as a penalty.@ Id. at 36.11
Sonzinsky, on which Defendants rely, is not to the contrary. Def. Mem. 30. There, the
Court upheld an annual federal tax on certain firearms dealers, explaining that A[o]n its face it is
11
Although the Court later upheld Bailey-type labor regulations under the Commerce
Clause (see, e.g., Darby), it has consistently reaffirmed Bailey=s Taxing and Spending Clause
limiting principle. See, e.g., Kahriger, 345 U.S. at 31-32.
48
only a taxing measure@ that was not Aattended by an offensive regulation.@ Sonzinski, 300 U.S. at
513-514. The Court refused to infer a nefarious congressional motive to avoid otherwise
applicable constitutional limitations on federal power. Id. at 514. However, the Court B as if to
distinguish the PPACA B made clear that it was not dealing with a case Awhere the statute contains
regulatory provisions related to a purported tax in such a way as has enabled this Court to say in
other cases that the latter is a penalty resorted to as a means of enforcing the regulations.@ Id. at
513.12
Similarly, United States v. Butler (also relied on by Defendants) makes clear that Congress
cannot avoid limits on its powers simply by denominating a penalty, designed to enforce otherwise
impermissible regulations, as a Atax.@ The Court referenced Bailey (The Child Labor Tax Case)
and Hill v. Wallace, noting that the laws at issue there Apurported to be taxing measures,@ but really
were meant to regulate conduct not otherwise subject to the commerce or any other enumerated
power with Athe levy of the tax a means to force compliance.@ Butler, 297 U.S. at 70.13 This was
12
In Defendants= other cases taxes were sustained because their regulatory
mechanisms supported revenue collection. See United States v. Sanchez, 340 U.S. 42 (1950)
(special taxes imposed on marijuana imports, production, and sales); United States v. Doremus,
249 U.S. 86 (1919) (same with respect to opiates and coca derivatives); License Tax Cases, 72
U.S. 462 (1866) @license@ requirements taxes because federal government lacked power to
authorize licensed activity). In all of these cases, the test of a valid tax Ais whether on its face the
tax operates as a revenue generating measure and the attendant regulations are in aid of a revenue
purpose.@ United States v. Ross, 458 F.2d 1144, 1145 (5th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 868
(1972), cited in United States v. Spoerke, 568 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2009).
13
Butler also considered and rejected the same argument Defendants advance here
based on the General Welfare Clause. See 297 U.S. at 68. Although the power to provide for the
general welfare is an Aindependent grant of legislative authority@ (Fullilove v. Klutznick, 448 U.S.
448, 473-74 (1980), overruled on other grounds by Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S.
200 (1905); see also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 90 (1976)), that authority is limited to the
imposition of taxes and spending of revenues.
49
14
held Aan unconstitutional abuse of the power to tax.@ Id.
Here, as noted, Congress did not even bother to label the mandate=s penalty a Atax,@ and
expressly relied on the Commerce Clause to support both provisions. See PPACA '
1501(a)(2)(A). Neither mandate nor penalty is supported by the Taxing and Spending Clause, a
result that also cannot be cured by reliance on the Necessary and Proper Clause (and Defendants
conspicuously omit any such reliance).
VII. THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS NOT A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF

CONGRESS=S TAXING POWER BECAUSE IT IS EITHER A REGULATION, AN
UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAX, OR MUST BE JUSTIFIED THROUGH SOME
OTHER ENUMERATED POWER.
Congress did not state in the Act that it was exercising its taxing authority to impose the
individual mandate and penalty; instead, it relied exclusively on its power under the Commerce
Clause. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3 (“[Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with
foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”). In what can only be
termed post hoc rationalization, Defendants now argue that the mandate is justified under
Congress's power to tax. As discussed supra and further set forth below, this argument must fail,
since the penalty is exactly what Congress called it - a penalty - and not a tax at all.
A. The individual mandate is not a legitimate exercise of Congress=s Taxing

Power because it is a regulation and not a tax.
The Supreme Court has never held that Congress can force individuals to engage in
commerce so their actions can then be regulated under the Commerce Clause (as executed by the
14
The Court further noted Athat the power to tax could not justify the regulation of the
practice of a profession, under the pretext of raising revenue@ and Athat Congress could not, in the
guise of a tax, impose sanctions for violation of state law respecting the local sale of liquor.@ Id.
(citations omitted).
50
Necessary and Proper Clause). There is no controlling precedent for such regulatory
bootstrapping. That is, of course, why the Defendants had to devise the fallback position that the
penalty for not buying health insurance is authorized under Congress=s power to Alay and collect
taxes.@ See, e.g., Randy E. Barnett, The Insurance Mandate in Peril, Wall St. J., Apr. 29, 2010, at
A19. Defendants= invocation of Congress=s taxing power in the last few pages of its
memorandum, however, fails on three counts.
First, in the legislation itself, Congress expressly justified the individual mandate under the
Commerce Clause: AThe individual responsibility requirement provided for in this section . . . is
commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce, as a result of
the effects described in paragraph (2).@ Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (APPACA@),
Pub. L. No. 111-148, ' 1501(a)(1), 124 Stat. 119 (2010). Paragraph (2) then begins: AThe
requirement regulates activity that is commercial and economic in nature: economic and
financial decisions about how and when health care is paid for, and when health insurance is
purchased.@ Id. ' 1501(a)(2)(A). However, Congress levied Ataxes@ elsewhere in the legislation
B for example, on Ahigh cost@ employer-sponsored insurance plans (the so-called ACadillac plans@)
and on Aindoor tanning services@ B so it presumably understands the distinction. Although a
report by the Joint Committee on Taxation released two days before the president signed the
legislation dubs the mandate an AExcise Tax on Individuals Without Essential Health Benefits
Coverage,@ the statute never describes the Apenalty@ it imposes for violating the mandate as an
Aexcise tax@ B expressly calling it a Apenalty.@ Staff of Joint Comm. on Taxation, 111th Cong.,
Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions of the AReconciliation Act of 2010,@ as Amended,
in Combination with the APatient Protection and Affordable Care Act@ 2 (Comm. Print 2010).
51
Second, Congress listed all the revenue provisions of the health care reform for purposes of
calculating how much revenue the legislation would generate, but declined to include the penalty
for failing to comply with the mandate. PPACA '' 9001-17. Of course, for an exaction to be a
true tax, it has to be a genuine revenue-raising measure. See, e.g. Rosenberger v. Rector &
Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 841 (1995) (AA tax, in the general understanding of the
term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the Government.@)
(quoting Butler v. United States, 297 U.S. 1, 61 (1936)). When the courts have upheld taxes with
a regulatory purpose B like the cigarette tax B it was because revenue-generation was still a key
objective. See, e.g. United States v. Sanchez, 340 U.S. 42, 44 (1950). (When Congress uses its
power constitutionally, it is well settled Athat a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it
regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities taxed.@) (emphasis added).
In contrast, the individual mandate exists solely to coerce people into acquiring health care
coverage. Congress never mentions the taxing power with respect to the individual mandate and
none of its eight findings mention raising any revenue with the penalty. See PPACA ' 1501(a).
Indeed, if the mandate were to work perfectly B ensuring that everybody owned an insurance
policy B it would raise exactly zero revenue. Congress simply did not enact the mandate pursuant
to its taxing power. To the contrary, the statute expressly says that the mandate Aregulates activity
that is commercial and economic in nature.@ Id. ' 1501 (a)(92)(A).
In United States v. Kahriger, 345 U.S. 22, 28 (1953), the Supreme Court upheld a punitive
tax on gambling by saying that A[u]nless there are provisions extraneous to any tax need, courts are
without authority to limit the exercise of the taxing power.@ In other words, the Court in Kahriger
declined to look behind Congress=s assertion that it was exercising its taxing power to see whether
52
a measure was really a regulatory penalty. But this principle cuts both ways: Neither can courts
look behind Congress=s inadequate assertion of its commerce power to speculate as to whether a
measure was Areally@ at tax.
Third, while inserting the mandate into the Internal Revenue Code (which does not
somehow transform the penalty into a tax, as discussed supra), Congress expressly severed the
penalty from the tax code=s normal enforcement mechanisms. The failure to pay the penalty
Ashall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.@ PPACA
' 5000A(g)(2)(A). Nor shall the IRS Afile notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer
by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section,@ or Alevy on any such property
with respect to such failure.@ Id. ' 5000A(g)(2)(B). Yet, other than criminal prosecutions or
levies, there are no enforcement provisions in the Code. Thus, the location of the penalty
enforcement provisions in the Code is - quite literally - meaningless.15
In short, the Apenalty@ is explicitly justified as a regulation of economic activity and not as
a tax. While Congress need not specify what power it may be exercising, there is simply no
authority for courts to re-characterize a regulation as a tax when doing so is contrary to Congress=s
express and actual regulatory purpose. Never before has the Court looked behind Congress=s
unconstitutional assertion of its commerce power to see if a measure could have been justified as a
tax. For that matter, never before has a Atax@ penalty been used to mandate, rather than discourage
or prohibit, economic activity.
B. Alternatively, if the individual mandate=s penalty were to be considered a tax,
15
It is partially for this reason that Petitioners have asked for a "declaration of
Petitioners’ rights, duties and obligations under the PPACA; specifically, as to whether Petitioners
must purchase healthcare insurance or be required by the federal government to pay a monetary or
criminal penalty," in para. 102(b) of the Amended Petition.
53
then it is an unconstitutional direct, unapportioned tax.
For the sake of argument, if the individual mandate=s penalty were to be considered a tax, it
would be a direct, capitation (or Ahead@) tax that must be apportioned among the States according
to Census data. U.S. Const. Art. I, ' 2, cl. 3 & Art. I, ' 9, cl. 4. The Constitution allows two
broad types of taxation B indirect taxes such as duties, imposts and excises, which must be
Auniform throughout the United States,@ U.S. Const. art. I, ' 8, cl. 1; and direct taxes, which must
be apportioned. All legitimate taxes must be one or the other. See Pollock v. Farmers= Loan &
Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 557 (1895) (APollock I@). These requirements cannot be ignored. See
United States v. Mfrs. Nat=l Bank of Detroit, 363 U.S. 194, 199 (1960) (analyzing the merits of a
direct tax challenge); Knowlton v. Moore, 178 U.S. 41, 82 (1900) (AThe commands of the
Constitution in this, as in all other respects, must be obeyed; direct taxes must be apportioned@).16
Holding personal property and income taxes to be direct, the Supreme Court also has
defined direct taxes to include capitation and real property taxes. Pollock v. Farmer=s Loan &
Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 (1895) (APollock II@); Pollock I, 157 U.S. at 558. Contrary to Defendants=
claim, Def. Mem. 41, the Court never has suggested that only property taxes are Adirect@ taxes.17
In Knowlton, the Court simply iterated the holding of Pollock II that Ano sound distinction existed
between a tax levied on a person solely because of his general ownership of real property, and that
16
The court in State of Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Svcs. did not rule on the
issue of whether the mandate would be an unconstitutional direct or capitation tax, but noted that
the issue has merit: " Although the argument is not only plausible, but appears to have actual merit,
as some commentators have noted, see, e.g., Steven J. Willis and Nakku Chung, Constitutional
Decapitation and Healthcare, Tax Notes (2010), I need not be concerned with the issue. As
previously explained, it is quite clear that Congress did not intend the individual mandate penalty
to be a tax; it is a penalty." 2010 WL 4010119 at *31 (N.D.Fla.).
17
Any contrary suggestion in Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 175 (1976), was dictum.
Its result was based on the reverse logic that only an apportionable tax can be a direct tax.
54
same tax imposed solely because of his general ownership of personal property.@ 178 U.S. at 82.
It held that the tax at issue B an estate tax B was an excise tax upon the transfer of property, and thus
not an unapportioned direct tax as defined in Pollock II.
The individual mandate=s penalty, if it were a tax at all, would be like the direct taxes in
Pollock I and II, being levied directly on individuals and not on any specific transaction or event.
Thus, it does not qualify as an excise or other direct tax and, as discussed above, its placement
among the Internal Revenue Code=s true excise taxes is irrelevant. Excises are imposed upon (1)
the manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity requiring a taxable event or transaction; or
(2) a fee levied for the privilege of transacting business.18 As the Court explained in Thomas v.
United States B addressing a stamp tax on stock transfers B imposts, duties, and excise taxes are
imposed on Aimportation, consumption, manufacturing, and sale of certain commodities,
privileges, particular business transactions, vocations, occupations, and the like.@ 192 U.S. at
370. A[A] fundamental characteristic of a typical excise tax@ is that it is based on an Aact by the
person or entity taxed[,]@ and such exactions can be avoided Aby the simple expedient of refraining
from an act that would give rise to the tax.@ In re DeRoche, 287 F.3d 751, 756 (9th Cir. 2002).
See also Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107, 150-51 (1911) (excise taxes may be imposed on
the privilege of doing business).19
Relying on Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497 (1930), Defendants make a novel argument
18
See Fernandez v. Wiener, 326 U.S. 340, 362 (1945) (excise tax is Aa tax imposed upon the
exercise of some of the numerous rights of property.@); Thomas v. United States, 192 U.S. 363, 370
(1904).
19
Defendants cannot rely on Union Electric Co. v. United States, 363 F.3d 1292 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). The tax there was levied on purchasing, not on the refusal to purchase, and does not
bring Pollock II=s validity into question. That case distinguished Hylton because the carriage tax
there was an excise on a consumable expense, not a direct tax on personal property.
55
that a tax predicated on a Adecision@ is indirect. But Tyler involved an estate tax imposed on the
transfer of property and only confirms that a tax laid Aupon the happening of an event@ is an
indirect tax. Id. at 502. An excise is triggered by an action, not by the decision to Awipe out the
distinction between direct and other classes of taxes.@ Bromley v. McCaughn, 280 U.S. 124,
137-138 (1929) (suggesting that a tax on keeping property was direct as no different from a tax on
property).
Nor is the mandate=s penalty an Aincome@ tax, exempted from apportionment by the
Sixteenth Amendment. The Constitution allows for three types of federal taxation, depending on
the event that triggers their incidence: income, direct, and excise. Here, income is merely one of
many factors that affect the amount of the individual mandate penalty B along with age, family
size, geographic location, and smoking status B and not the tax trigger. Thus, the penalty is not an
income tax. Although the penalty amount turns in part on income, an income tax is levied on
Aaccessions to wealth.@ Comm=r of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 426, 429,
431 (1955). The Internal Revenue Code defines gross income in the constitutional sense as Aall
income from whatever source derived.@ 26 U.S.C. ' 61 (H.R. Rep. No. 1337, 83rd Cong. 2d.
Sess., A18 (1954)). Thus, to tax Aincome@ there must be an actual increase in wealth; otherwise,
the Sixteenth Amendment is inapplicable and cannot rescue an improper direct tax. See Eisner v.
Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206 (1920) (the Sixteenth Amendment Ashall not be extended by loose
construction@ to repeal or modify a direct tax apportionment requirement).20
The individual mandate=s penalty does not require any accession to wealth, does not tax
20
The penalty also does not meet the constitutional requirement that income taxes be
Aderived@ or Arealized,@ Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 493 U.S. 203, 214
(1990), because it is imposed regardless of any realization event.
56
Aincome derived,@ and thus is not an income tax. It does not tax a transfer of property or the
manufacture, sale, or consumption of a commodity, nor does it impose a fee for the privilege of
transacting business; thus, it is not an indirect tax. The penalty falls on each American not
otherwise excepted. If it is a tax, it is an unconstitutional, unapportioned direct tax and must be
invalidated on that account.21
The Supreme Court has defined a direct tax as one Awhich falls upon the owner merely
because he is the owner, regardless of his use or disposition of the property.@ Fernandez v.
Wiener, 326 U.S. 340, 362 (1945). AOnly three taxes are definitely known to be direct: (1) a
capitation . . ., (2) a tax upon real property, and (2) a tax upon personal property.@ Murphy v.
Internal Revenue Serv., 493 F.3d 170, 181 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The new penalty is not a capitation B
a fixed tax levied on each person within a jurisdiction B because it is neither fixed (the amount
differs based on the above-listed factors) nor levied on each person. It can be characterized most
charitably as a negative tax on property, the triggering event being the non-ownership of an
insurance policy.22
But, as already discussed, the Constitution requires that direct taxes be apportioned by
population as determined by the census. U.S. Const. art. I, '' 2, 9. To satisfy Constitutional
scrutiny, the method is not complex: First, decide the total revenue to be raised; second, allocate
that amount among the states according to population; and third, divide each state=s allocation by
its population to compute an individual tax rate. Obviously, the individual mandate penalty is not
21
Defendants= cases, Def. Mem. 39-41, posited as exempting penalties enacted under
the Commerce Clause from the limits on direct taxes, involved penalties not subject to
apportionment because they were not taxes at all. Like the mandate=s penalty, they were enacted
to enforce regulations of commerce, not to raise revenue B however little.
22
See Robert A. Levy, The Taxing Power of Obamacare, National Review Online,
Apr. 20, 2010.
57
calculated in this way. If the penalty is a direct tax, it is unconstitutional because it is not and
cannot be apportioned.
Finally, as the Defendants note, certain other taxes, such as the Social Security payroll tax,
have been classified as excises, which are levied on the performance of an act or the enjoyment of
a privilege. Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 645 (1937). Although the term Aexcise@ now
covers virtually even internal revenue tax except the income tax, the individual mandate penalty
(unlike Social Security) is not a tax on employment or other action B it Ataxes@ inaction.
Nonetheless, even if it is an excise, the Constitution demands that AExcises shall be uniform
throughout the United States,@ U.S. Const. art. I, ' 8, cl. 1, meaning taxed at the same rate
throughout the country. The individual mandate penalty can depend in part on the cost of health
insurance offered in the particular market. PPACA ' 1501(b). That cost will depend in part on
rating areas applicable within each state. PPACA ' 1201. Thus, the individual mandate penalty
can vary by location and, for that reason, would be unconstitutional as an excise tax for lack of
uniformity.
C. Congress may not use the taxing power as a backdoor means of regulating an
activity unless the regulations is authorized by the Constitution.
Even if the penalty is considered a tax and somehow survives the test for apportionment or
uniformity, Congress cannot use the taxing power as a backdoor means of regulating (as opposed
to taxing) an activity unless the regulation is authorized elsewhere in the Constitution. While the
Defendants are correct to point out that the taxing power is Aextensive,@ one of the few times the
Supreme Court struck down a federal tax is instructive as to its limits. In the 1920s, when
Congress wanted to prohibit activity that was then deemed to be solely within states= police
powers, it tried to penalize the activity using its tax power. The Supreme Court struck down such a
58
penalty, saying, AThere comes a time in the extension of the penalizing features of the so-called tax
when it loses its character as such and becomes a mere penalty with the characteristics of
regulation and punishment.@ Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., 259 U.S. 20, 38 (1922). Noting
that that law=s Aprohibitory and regulatory effect and purpose are palpable,@ the Court held the
penalty to be not a tax but rather a regulation of child labor. Id. at 37-38.
Whether Congress describes the payment mechanism contained in the individual mandate
a tax or a fine, it cannot so simply circumvent Constitutional proscriptions on its power.
Otherwise, it could evade all Constitutional limits on its authority by merely imposing the
utilization of Ataxes@ whenever any individual or entity fails to follow a prescribed course of
action. In Child Labor Tax Case (Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.), 259 U.S. 20 (1922), the Court
specifically ruled that Congress could not impose a Atax@ in order to penalize conduct B the
utilization of child labor B that it could not regulate under the Commerce Clause. In so doing, the
Court recognized, A[a]ll that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its
control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the states
have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to
enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a so-called tax
upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word >tax= would be to break down all
constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the
states.@ Drexel, 259 U.S. at 38 (emphasis added).
In anticipation of the above argument, the Defendants cite, most strongly, Kahriger, 345
U.S. 22. But there the Court also cited Bailey with approval and rejected the proposition Athat
Congress, under the pretense of exercising its power to tax has attempted to penalize illegal
59
intrastate gambling through the regulatory features of the Act.@ Id. at 24. See also Sonzinsky v.
United States, 300 U.S. 506, 513-14 (1937) (AInquiry into the hidden motives which may move
Congress to exercise a power constitutionally conferred upon it is beyond the competency of
courts.@). Thus, as stated above, this Court has no power to look behind Congress=s assertion of
its commerce power and speculate as to whether the individual mandate was Areally@ a tax. The
mandate is a regulatory tool explicitly designed to compel the purchase of health insurance. Tax
penalties imposed for a regulatory purpose B as here, if the mandate penalty is considered a tax B
must be authorized under an independent enumerated power.
VIII. THE PPACA=S INDIVIDUAL MANDATE VIOLATES DUE PROCESS.
A. The Amended Petition sufficiently alleges a violation of the liberty guaranteed

against federal encroachment by the Fifth Amendment=s Due Process Clause.
Petitioners also state a valid due process claim against the federal government, because the
individual mandate unconstitutionally deprives them of recognized liberty interests in the freedom
to eschew entering into a contract, to direct matters concerning dependent children, and to make
decisions regarding the acquisition and use of medical services, including the personal right not to
disclose privileged and confidential medical information to a corporate stranger. See, e.g.,
Washington V. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997); Cruzan v. Dir. Mo. Dep=t of Health, 497
U.S., 261 (1990); Pierce v. Soc=y of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S.
390, 399 (1923).
Defendants= cited authorities do not address recognized liberty interests on a motion to
dismiss, but instead analyze the merits of whether a new fundamental right or a new application of
an existing such right should be recognized. As the Eleventh Circuit explained in Williams v.
60
Alabama, 378 F.3d 1232, 1239 (11th Cir. 2004), that limited sort of analysis Amust begin with a
careful description of the asserted right[,]@ followed by consideration of whether such a right Ais
one of >those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation=s
history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.=@ Id. (citations omitted).
Petitioners here have alleged Due Process violations arising from long-recognized interests. Am.
Pet. & 79-84.
These interests are not diminished by West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937),
and its progeny, also relied on by Defendants. Def. Mem. 34. Those cases recognize that the
terms on which entities and individuals may contract are subject to regulation in appropriate
circumstances, but do not speak to the question of whether Congress can compel Americans to buy
something in the first instance. Williams v. Morgan, 478 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2007), and Vesta
Fire Ins. Corp. v. Florida, 141 F.3d 1427 (11th Cir. 1998), are similarly inapposite. Like Usury v.
Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1 (1976), they considered regulation of economic activity of
those already engaged in the marketplace, per their freely-made choices. For these reasons, the
Amended Petition sufficiently alleges a violation of the liberty guaranteed against federal
encroachment by the Fifth Amendment=s Due Process Clause.
B. The PPACA Impermissibly Infringes Personal Liberty.
APolitical freedom means the absence of coercion of a man by his fellow man. The
fundamental threat to freedom is power to coerce, be it in the hands of a monarch, a dictator, an
oligarchy, or a momentary majority. The preservation of freedom requires the elimination of
such concentration of power to the fullest extent and the dispersal and distribution of whatever
power cannot be eliminated B a system of checks and balances. By removing the organization of
economic activity from the control of political authority, the market eliminates this source of
61
coercive power. It enables economic strength to be a check to political power rather than a
reinforcement.@ Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, University of Chicago Press, p. 15
(2002). With the PPACA, the federal government seeks to remove two checks on its power B
individual economic liberty and state sovereignty. Like Friedman, the federal government
understands that: AFundamentally, there are only two ways of co-ordinating the economic
activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion B the techniques of
the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary co-operation of individuals B
the technique of the marketplace.@ Id. at 13. The temporary ruling majority in Congress today
may be motivated by admirable motives but that is not enough to justify unconstitutional
legislative and regulatory action. More importantly, it is impossible to draw a reasonable
distinction between the individual mandate here and a variety of potentially abusive private
transaction mandates that might follow in its wake. The Court need not be a fan of the late Dr.
Friedman or the free market to recognize the obvious danger inherent in giving its approval to such
open-ended federal power over the individual, which the Constitution does not grant to any
Congress.
C. The right to be free from governmental coercion is a fundamental right since

individuals have a Due Process right to not enter into a contract for the
purchase health insurance from a corporate stranger.
The citizens of the United States possess a fundamental right to be free of government
coercion. Put another way, citizens possess a fundamental right to not be forced against their will
to exercise any other right. This freedom from government coercion is both Adeeply rooted in this
Nation=s history and tradition@ and Aimplicit in the concept of ordered liberty.@ Moore v. City of
East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
Among the fundamental rights recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States are
62
those explicitly found in the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech, religious belief, petition
and assembly, and freedom of the press. U.S. Const. amend. I. Elsewhere, the constitution
prohibits the deprivation of Aliberty . . . without due process of law@ as against the States. U.S.
Const. Amend. XIV, and against the Federal Government by way of the Due Process Clause of the
5th Amendment. See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 500 (1954).
The Supreme Court has also held that beyond the rights expressly granted by the
Constitution, the citizens of the United States also possess implicit, fundamental unenumerated
rights including the right to travel, United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the right to
privacy, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), and the right to live among extended
family, Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977). The Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment has traditionally protected unenumerated rights from infringement by the
federal government. ANo person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law . . . .@ U.S. Const. amend. V. The Ninth Amendment, in light of its ratification
history, grants protection to these unenumerated rights by stating, AThe Enumeration in the
Constitution, of Certain Rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.@ U.S. Const. Amend. IX.
Additionally, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments as granting substantive due process rights to American citizens. In this regard, the
Supreme Court has concluded that due process protects against the transgression of personal
immunities that are Aimplicit in the concept of ordered liberty.@ Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S.
319, 325 (1937); see Sotto v. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 184, 191 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S.
950 (1980). Without question, implicit in the concept of ordered liberty is the right of a person to
be free from purchasing a good or service the individual does not desire to purchase.
63
In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), the Supreme Court defined those Aliberty@
interests protected by the due process clause as follows: AWhile this court has not attempted to
define with exactness the liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration, and
some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without doubt, it denotes not merely
freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of
the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring
up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy
those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by
free men.@ Meyer, 262 U.S. at 399.
Such liberty interests implicit within the substantive parameters of the due process clause
include the right of an extended family to share a household, Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431
U.S. 494 (1977); the right of a woman to decide whether to have an abortion, Roe v. Wade, 410
U.S. 113 (1973); the freedom to marry a person of another race, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1
(1967); the right to vote, Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966); the
right to use contraceptives, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); the right of access to the
courts, NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963); the right of association, NAACP v. Alabama, 357
U.S. 449 (1958); the right to send children to private schools, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S.
510 (1925); and the right to have children instructed in foreign language, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262
U.S. 390 (1923).
In light of the above, refusal to enter into a contract in the face of an illegitimate demand
for a contract is subject to protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.
64
D. Petitioners have a fundamental Due Process right to not share confidential

medical information with a corporate stranger.
Compelling Petitioners to enter into a private contract to purchase insurance from another
entity will legally require them to share private and personal information with the contracting
party. Specifically, by requiring Petitioners to abide by the Act=s individual mandate, Congress is
also compelling Petitioners to fully disclose past medical conditions, habits and behaviors. Not
only will the insurer be privy to all past medical information, Congress=s individual mandate will,
by necessity, allow the compelled insurer access to Petitioners= present and future medical
information of a confidential nature. If judicially enforceable privacy rights mean anything, then
private and confidential medical details certainly merit Constitutional protection. Petitioners
should not be forced to disclose the most intimate details of their past, present and future medical
information.
Even the Defendants must admit that the individual mandate is a direct affront to our right
to be let alone - a right that most Americans regard as sacrosanct:
This right of privacy was called by Mr. Justice Brandeis the right "to
be let alone." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478
(dissenting opinion). That right includes the privilege of an
individual to plan his own affairs, for, "outside areas of plainly
harmful conduct, every American is left to shape his own life as he
thinks best, do what he pleases, go where he pleases."
Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1971) (Douglas, J., concurring), quoting Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S.
116, 126. Hard on the heels of the right "to be let alone" is "the freedom to care for one's health
and person, freedom from bodily restraint or compulsion, freedom to walk, stroll, or loaf." Id.
The PPACA is a direct affront to our rights to privacy and our freedom to care our own health as
we see fit, without governmental intrusion.
65
The right to medical privacy is not a new idea - like the desire for marital privacy, it
predates our nation by millennia. In Doe v. Bolton, Justice Douglas wrote in his concurrence that
the "questions presented in the present cases . . . involve the right of privacy, one aspect of which
we considered in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484, when we held that various
guarantees in the Bill of Rights create zones of privacy." He then quoted a passage from
Griswold, in which the Court recognized that the right of privacy in marriage is very old indeed:
"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older
than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a
coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and
intimate to the degree of being sacred."
Doe v. Bolton, 410 US. 179, quoting Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 486 (1965).
Similarly, the right to medical privacy is older than our Constitution, in some respects as old as
Western Civilization itself. The oldest surviving example of medical privacy in Western
civilization is the physicians’ duty of confidentiality formulated in the fifth century B.C. by the
Hippocratic Oath, by which a physician promised: “[W]hatsoever I shall see or hear in the course
of my profession, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should
not be published abroad, I will never divulge, holding such things shameful to be holy secret.”
Robert M. Gellman, Prescribing Privacy: The Uncertain Role of the Physician in the Protection of
Patient Privacy, 62 N.C. L. REV. 255, 267-68 (1984) (quoting 1 Hippocrates 164-65 (W. Jones
trans. 1923), reprinted in Ethics In Medicine 5 (S. Reiser et al. eds., 1977)). The influence of this
oath continued to prevail among physicians of the Western world into the modern period. The
common law first clearly adopted the confidentiality principle for doctors only in 1776, in Rex v.
Duchess of Kingston, 20 How. State Tr. 355, 572-73 (1776). See Daniel W. Shuman, The Origins
of the Physician-Patient Privilege and Professional Secret, 39 SW. L.J. 661, 671-72 (1985).
66
Privacy, like speech and assembly, is a fundamental constitutional right, according to Roe
v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Adam Freedman, Roe v. Obamacare, National Review Online
(June 15, 2010). Although the immediate issue in Roe was abortion, the Supreme Court’s
decision created a broad “zone of privacy” that included not only abortion but more generally the
right “to care for one’s health and person,” as Justice Douglas stated in his concurring opinion:
It is one thing for a patient to agree that her physician may consult
with another physician about her case. It is quite a different matter
for the State compulsorily to impose on that physician-patient
relationship another layer or, as in this case, still a third layer of
physicians. The right of privacy - the right to care for one's health
and person and to seek out a physician of one's own choice protected
by the Fourteenth Amendment - becomes only a matter of theory,
not a reality, when a "multiple physician approval" system is
mandated by the State.
Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1971) (Douglas, J., concurring). Clearly, the PPACA interferes
with each person's right to "care for one's health and to seek out a physician of one's own choice" as
each individual sees fit. Notice also that Justice Douglas was not just concerned about privacy
outside of the physician-patient arena (such as when insurance companies receive private medical
information), he was concerned that the government not be allowed to impose additional
physician-patient relationships on a person. In other words, even forcing a person to divulge
private medical information to a doctor not of her own choosing was deemed untenable by Justice
Douglas - to force a person to divulge private medical information to an insurance corporation
certainly is even more untenable from a constitutional standpoint.
The millennia-old desire for medical privacy cuts across many social and ideological lines.
The "Coalition for Patient Privacy" is a diverse coalition of three dozen organizations, including
Microsoft and the ACLU, together with one Senator and House Member. In a letter to Congress
dated January 14, 2009, the Coalition wrote: "Personal health information should not be sold and
67
shared as a typical commodity. Health information is different; it is extremely sensitive and can
directly impact jobs, credit, and insurance coverage. Commercial transfers undermine routine
privacy safeguards, including transparency and accountability." Exhibit 1. The indisputable
fact that medical information is amongst the most private and sensitive information that anyone
has is demonstrated by the following passage from an amicus brief filed in the State of Florida
several years ago:
The relationship between a doctor and his or her patient in our

society is unique; indeed, the level of trust attendant to that
relationship can exceed that between even a husband and a wife. A
physician is privy to the most private details of a person’s life,
details which could be devastating to the patient’s personal, social,
and professional life if revealed to third parties. The patient’s
medical records may reveal treatment for depression and details of
suicidal thoughts or attempts not otherwise disclosed from a review
of the patient’s pharmacy records. Treatment for Hepatitis C may
disclose past intravenous drug usage. The patient’s medical history
may disclose the fact that as a young woman the patient received an
abortion or had a child out of wedlock which was later put up for
adoption. No one other than the patient and his or her physician
should be privy to this information absent consent of the patient.
Exhibit 2, at 6-7 (emphasis added). This passage illustrates not only some of the reasons why
medical privacy is so vital to Americans, but also the universality of our desire to protect our
medical privacy. This amicus brief was written by the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida
in support of appellant Rush Hudson Limbaugh III, an ideologically conservative political pundit
who is a well-known critic of the ACLU. Mr. Limbaugh and the ACLU have their political
differences, but they are on the same side of this issue - the side of personal liberty.
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court described Roe as a rule of “personal
autonomy” that protects all “intimate and personal choices . . . central to personal dignity” in
matters “fundamentally affecting a person.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey,
68
505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992). In judging which decisions are constitutionally protected as those “that
an individual may make without unjustified government interference,” the Court has set forth two
criteria: they must be “personal decisions,” meaning they must primarily involve one's self or
one's family, and they must be “important decisions,” which profoundly affect one's development
or one's life. Andrews v. Ballard, 498 F. Supp. 1038 (S.D. Tex. 1980), quoting Carey v.
Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678, 684-85 (1977). Consistent with these broad
principles, courts have held have held that the right to privacy includes, for example, the right to
refuse even life-saving medical treatment: "The decision to obtain or reject medical treatment, no
less than the decision to continue or terminate pregnancy, meets both criteria." Id. at 1046-47. If
the right to medical privacy is so broad that it encompasses the right to "obtain or reject medical
treatment," how can it not encompass the right to either purchase or not purchase health insurance
as each individual sees fit?
Because the right to privacy is deemed fundamental, any statute that threatens that right is
subject to “strict scrutiny” by the courts. It is difficult to see how the individual mandate can
survive such scrutiny. After all, if the right to privacy guarantees our liberty to make “intimate,”
“personal” decisions relating to “health,” “dignity,” and “autonomy,” it must also protect our right
not to apply for or buy health insurance. If the Constitution prohibits government from dictating
decisions that “full adult humans” can otherwise make for themselves, how can the same
Constitution authorize Congress to force adult citizens to enter into particular private contracts?
The threat to privacy does not end there. Because of the individual mandate, each citizen
will be required to divulge, on an ongoing basis, personal medical details to an insurance company.
Defendants' brief basically says that Petioners should not worry about this because they are only
being made to disclose this information to insurance companies, which is somehow not the same
69
as a "public" disclosure. Defendants even compare insurance companies to "government
archivists with an 'unblemished record . . . for discretion." Def. Mem. at 38. Petitioners,
however, do not wish to trust their information with any insurance company, and they are hardly
alone in this regard. Defendants contends that petitioners we can trust insurance companies
because those corporations must abide by HIPPA. Indeed, an individual who believes that the
Privacy Rule is not being upheld can go through the complex process of filing a complaint with
the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR), see
45 C.F.R. 160.306. However, according to the Wall Street Journal, the OCR has a long backlog
and ignores most complaints. "Complaints of privacy violations have been piling up at the
Department of Health and Human Services. Between April 2003 and Nov. 30, the agency fielded
23,896 complaints related to medical-privacy rules, but it has not yet taken any enforcement
actions against hospitals, doctors, insurers or anyone else for rule violations." Theo Francis
Spread of records stirs fears of privacy erosion, Wall Street Journal, December 28, 2006.
Unfortunately, HIPPA allows bill collectors, fund raisers and marketers to receive our confidential
information from our insurers, and the PPACA mandates that we purchase this insurance. Id.
There is thus a direct link between governmental action (the mandate) and public disclosure of our
most private and intimate details.
Defendants heavily speculate that Petitioners might not have to disclose private
information to the insurance companies that are forced upon them, though they also admit that they
just don't know: "It remains unknown whether plans might be available that specifically address
individual privacy concerns." Def. Mem. at 49. It is known, however, that the PPACA does not
have any protections at all that would stop insurance companies from requiring disclosure of
medical information during the application process, and no one can explain how an insurance
70
company can then be billed for services without knowing what those services are. Insurance
companies will gather immense amounts of medical information simply in the course of paying for
diagnostic tests, treatments, routine examinations, etc.23 Before the PPACA, a person could opt
out of this system by simply paying for medical expenses out of pocket - now, people must either
apply for and maintain insurance coverage or face a penalty. Clearly, this is an unconstitutional
invasion of privacy.
The Act=s individual mandate expressly violates Petitioners fundamental rights they enjoy
as part of the Aliberty@ interest under the Fifth Amendment. Fundamental rights such as Athe right
to make one=s own health care decisions,@ Athe right to abstain from entering into a contractual
relationship with another private entity@ and Athe right to not be compelled to divulge private
medical information to another private entity@ are deeply rooted in American history and tradition
and implicated by the imposition of the Act. The Act=s individual mandate represents an abuse of
Congressional authority and a clear violation of substantive due process protections, since
Petitioners benefit from a constitutionally protected interest in making certain kinds of important
decisions free from governmental compulsion.
E. Freedom from Government Coercion is Deeply Rooted in This Nation=s

History.
A plain reading of all of the recognized fundamental rights of the citizens of the United
States demonstrates that the freedom from government coercion is a thread common throughout
23
There is even an occupational field that specializes in gathering medical information and
sending it to insurance companies. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has a category for 'Medical
Records and Health Information Technicians" who "assemble patients' health information
including medical history, symptoms, examination results, diagnostic tests, treatment methods,
and all other healthcare provider services." Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2010-11 Edition.
Currently there are over 172,500 people doing this job; "they often serve as liaisons between
healthcare facilities, insurance companies, and other establishments," according to the federal
government. Id.
71
the history and traditions of the United States. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484
(1965). Not only do each of the fundamental rights reserved to the people by the Constitution
reflect this tradition, but also the express powers and prohibitions to the federal government reflect
the cognizance of the Constitution=s drafters that the chief notion of liberty protected by the
Constitution is freedom from governmental coercion.
For example, the fundamental rights protected within the First Amendment include
freedom of speech and religion. U.S. Const. amend. I. But along with those rights, the
Constitution grants the freedom from giving coerced testimony in the 5th Amendment, and
prohibits the Congress from establishing a religion and coercing citizens to participate in it. U.S.
Const. amend. V and I. The Constitution mandates that people be free from being coerced by
government into allowing police into their homes or searching their person, absent a warrant
supported by a showing of probable cause. U.S. Const. Amend. IV.
As a converse, the Constitution limits the ability of government to interfere in the lives of
the people who are otherwise living freely and lawfully. As mentioned above, government may
search homes, but only when authorized to do so by warrant supported by probable cause. U.S.
Const. amend. IV. Congress is forbidden from suspending the writ of habeas corpus, which
protects the people from being restrained or coerced from moving about freely against their will
without just cause. U.S. Const. art. I, ' 9. When prosecuting a person in a criminal trial, the
government is forbidden from holding a person indefinitely and required to try that person quickly
and publicly. U.S. Const. Amend. VI. Likewise, the government may not try a person twice for
the same crime. U.S. Const. Amend. V. Read together, these provisions of the Constitution
establish that when government regularly exercises its coercive authority over the people, its
powers to do so are restrained. The Constitution presumes liberty. In explaining the reasoning
72
behind its fundamental structure, James Madison wrote Ato lay a due foundation for that separate
and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which, to a certain extent, is admitted
on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should
have a will of its own . . .@ Federalist No. 51. (emphasis added).
Liberty, at its most basic sense, is the Afreedom from arbitrary or undue external restraint,
especially by a government,@ but liberty also includes Athe absence of a legal duty imposed on a
person.@ Black=s Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004). The PPACA infringes on this second notion of
liberty. The Act imposes on the people of the United States, collectively and individually, a new
duty to purchase health insurance with required Aminimum essential coverage.@ Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-148, ' 1501A(b)(1). Crucially, the
PPACA does not tax, regulate, or control a person who is engaged in any positive conduct at all,
but reaches individuals who are by its very definition engaged in no conduct at all. Freedom from
this sort of coercion is implicit in any concept of ordered liberty.
At first blush, this "nanny state" use of government coercion may seem benign. After all,
Defendants may argue that most people purchase health care insurance on their own or through
their employers, and a significant majority of those without insurance would do so were it more
affordable. This reasoning is dangerous to all fundamental liberties. Imagine, for example, if
Congress passed a law requiring people to purchase Aminimum essential@ food. After all, what
could be more essential than Ahealth,@ but healthy food. Under the Act=s logic, most people
already purchase their own food and many who cannot, would do so were more food affordable.
If there were nothing incongruous with liberty and the Act, then Congress would be permitted to
require people to buy the Aminimum essential@ food it deems appropriate. If Congress is capable
under the Constitution of so coercing the people, then it is impossible to fathom any limit to its
73
powers. This result cannot be countenanced against the Constitution handed down to us by the
Framers. Writing on their intent to protect a broader scope of liberty in the Constitution, Justice
Brandeis wrote, AThey conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone B the most
comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.@ Olmstead v. United States,
277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J. dissenting)
F. The Governmental interest furthered by the individual mandate is

insufficiently compelling and not narrowly tailored.
If Congress wishes to abridge the fundamental right to be free from governmental
coercion, then such abridgement deserves heightened judicial scrutiny and a narrowing of the
Apresumption of constitutionality@ of the legislation. United States v. Carolene Products, 304
U.S. 144, 153 n.4 (1938). The burden is on the government to justify an infringement of
fundamental rights by demonstrating that the legislation is narrowly tailored to further a
compelling governmental interest. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 302 (1993). After identifying
the rising costs of health care, and the problem of people waiting until injury to purchase health
insurance, the PPACA identifies the government=s interest in the individual requirement as,
A[s]ignificantly increasing health insurance coverage . . . will minimize this adverse selection and
broaden the health insurance risk pool to include healthy individuals, which will lower health
insurance premiums.@ Is lowering the price of health insurance premiums a sufficiently
compelling government interest to justify governmental coercion? Is requiring individuals to
purchase health insurance sufficiently narrowly tailored to achieve this interest? When compared
to prior Supreme Court precedent, the PPACA fails this high standard.
For example, in Hirabayashi v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff=s
due process rights yielded to the exigencies of war-time emergency and the legitimate application
74
of Congress=s war power. Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943). Likewise, in
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff=s right to refuse medical
treatment yielded to the government=s interest in preventing a pandemic. The rising cost of health
care does not pose such a threat as disease or foreign invasion to justify an infringement of a
fundamental right.
Requiring those without health insurance to purchase it does not further a compelling
government interest in a narrowly tailored manner. The government compels those without
coverage so as to aggregate those purchase with those it seeks to benefit. The requirement of
minimum essential coverage does not at its core further the interest of those who fall under the
clause=s power, but only those who cannot afford insurance. As an alternative, Congress could
easily raise revenues via its power to tax and then spend those revenues to subsidizing those who
cannot afford to buy health insurance, just as it does for food and education B without infringing on
the due process rights of the people. However, as currently written, the PPACA=s provision does
not conform to well-defined modes of constitutionally permissible taxation. See Willis and Chung,
Of Constitutional De-Capitation of Health Dare, 127 Tax Notes 9 (2010).
IX. CONCLUSION.
This case presents the Court with Athe arduous . . . task of marking the proper line of
partition between the authority of the general and that of the State governments.@ The Federalist
No. 37, at 227 (James Madison) (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1961). The PPACA is unprecedented B
quite literally, without any legal precedent B both in its regulatory scope and its expansion of
federal authority over states and individuals. As the Congressional Budget office said in 1994,
AThe government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful
75
residence in the United States.@ Cong. Budget office, The Budgetary Treatment of an individual
mandate to Buy Health Insurance 1 (1994). Never before has it been said that every man, woman
and child faces a civil penalty for declining to participate in the marketplace, nor have courts had to
consider such a breathtaking assertion of raw power. Even in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 11
(1942), the federal government did not claim the power to mandate that people become farmers or
enter into commercial transactions.
At issue is the constitutionality of the individual mandate C the requirement that
individuals obtain a government-approved health insurance policy or pay a penalty. Congress
specifically and expressly identified the Commerce Clause as the source of its authority, a position
the Defendants now assert in its Motion to Dismiss. Because Petitioners persuasively refute that
argument, Defendants have been forced to argue alternative grounds for their unconstitutional
power-grab, even though the President and Congress were adamant in declaring the mandate to be
a penalty and not a Atax@ increase. However, even if the individual mandate were by fiat
considered to be a tax, it would still be unconstitutional because it is neither apportioned (if a direct
tax) nor uniform (if an excise tax). Moreover, Congress cannot use the taxing power as a
backdoor means of regulating an activity unless such regulation is authorized elsewhere in the
Constitution. Anglo-American common law (where the Court must look to determine the nature
and scope of protected liberty interests) always has disfavored imposition of affirmative
obligations absent some duty either willingly undertaken or properly inferred. See, e.g. Hasenfus
v. LaJeunesse, 175 F.3d 68, 71 (1st Cir. 1999) (AUnder common law, inaction rarely gives rise to
liability unless some special duty of care exists.@).
As the United States Supreme Court recognized almost 150 years ago, A[n]o graver
question was ever considered by this court, nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the
76
whole,@ than the Government=s unconstitutional assertion of power against its own citizens. Ex
Parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 1, 118-19 (1866) (granting habeas corpus petition). Either the motion to
dismiss this lawsuit must be denied or the Constitution must be re-written by judicial fiat.
Petitioners therefore respectfully request that Defendants= Motion to Dismiss be denied.
Respectfully submitted this day of November 15, 2010.
LT. GOVERNOR PHIL BRYANT, RYAN S.

WALTERS, MICHAEL E.SHOTWELL AND
RICHARD A. CONRAD, ONBEHALF OF
THEMSELVES AND OTHERSSIMILARLY
SITUATED,
By: /s/Christopher B. McDaniel

CHRISTOPHER B. McDANIEL
Christopher B. McDaniel, MSB #10711

Brett W. Robinson, MSB#10006
Roy A. Nowell, Jr., MSB#100768
HORTMAN HARLOW BASSI ROBINSON
& McDANIEL, PLLC
Post Office Drawer 1409
Laurel, MS 39441
Tele: (601) 649-8611
Fax: (601) 649-6062
cmdaniel@hortmanharlow.com
And by: /s/K. Douglas Lee

K. DOUGLAS LEE
K. Douglas Lee, MSB#9887

LEE LAW FIRM, LLC
22 Milbranch Road
Bldg., No. 100
Hattiesburg, MS 39402
Tele: (601) 583-4447
Fax: (601) 450-0152
kdl@leelaw.us
Attorneys for Petitioners
77
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been served using the
Court’s ECF system, on Monday, November 15, 2010 to the counsel of record for all Defendants:
KATHRYN L. WYER
United States Department of Justice
Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Tel. (202) 616-8475/ Fax: (202) 616-8470
Email: Kathryn.Wyer@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants
Dated Monday, November 15, 2010.
By: /s/ K. Douglas Lee

K. DOUGLAS LEE
CHRISTOPHER B. McDANIEL, MSB #10711

BRETT W. ROBINSON, MSB #10006
ROY A. NOWELL, JR., MSB #100768
HORTMAN HARLOW BASSI ROBINSON
& McDANIEL, PLLC
POST OFFICE DRAWER 1409
LAUREL, MS 39441-1409
PHONE: (601) 649-8611
FAX:(601) 649-6979
cmdaniel@hortmanharlow.com
brobinson@hortmanharlow.com
rnowell@hortmanharlow.com
Attorney for Petitioners
K. DOUGLAS LEE, MSB #9887

LEE LAW FIRM LLC
22 MILBRANCH ROAD
BLDG. NO. 100
HATTIESBURG, MS 39402
PHONE: (601) 583-4447
FAX: (601) 450-0152
kdl@leelaw.us
Attorney for Plaintiffs
78

Healthcare Lawsuit Response

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Healthcare Lawsuit Response

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Case 2:10-cv-00076-KS-MTP Document 20 Filed 11/15/10 Page 1 of 95

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

LT. GOV. PHIL BRYANT, in his

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official

I. INTRODUCTION. .................................................................................................................. 1

II. PLAINTIFFS HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE,

A. Petitioners have standing. ................................................................................................. 4

IV. THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE EXCEEDS CONGRESS=S POWERS AND VIOLATES

V. THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS NOT A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF THE

VI. THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS IMPERMISSIBLE UNDER THE TAXING AND

VII. THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS NOT A LEGITIMATE EXERCISE OF

CONGRESS=S TAXING POWER BECAUSE IT IS EITHER A REGULATION, AN

B. The PPACA Impermissibly Infringes Personal Liberty. ................................................ 61

IX. CONCLUSION. ................................................................................................................. 75

Abbott Labs v. Gardner,

ACLU of Fla., Inc., v. Miami-Dave County Sch. Bd.,

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena,

Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat=l Union,

Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (The Child labor Tax Case),

Barr v. United States,

Bd. of Trustees v. United States,

Blanchette v. Ct. Gen. Ins. Corps.,

Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon

Carey v. Population Services International,

Clarke v. Sec. Indus., Ass=n,

Commissioner v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co.,

Comm=r of Internal Revenue v. Glenshaw Glass Co.,

Connecticut v. Am. Elec. Power Co.,

Cruzan v. Dir. Mo. Dep=t of Health,

Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno,

Dept of Commerce v. U.S. House of Representatives,

DIRECTV, Inc. v. Brown,

District of Columbia v. Heller,

Flint v. Stone Tracy Co.,

Fla. League of Prof=l Lobbyists, Inc. v. Meggs,

Fla. State Conf. of the NAACP v. Browning,

Fountas v. Comm=r of Dep=t of Rev.,

Freemanville Water Sys. Inc. v. Poarch Band of Creek Indians,

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority,

Garcia v. United States,

Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft,

Gustafon v. Alloyd Co.,

Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections,

Harris v. Mexican Specialty Foods, Inc.,

Head Money Cases,

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States,

Hirabayashi v. United States,

Hodge v. Muscatine County,

Hylton v. United States,

Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Fordice,

License Tax Cases,

Los Angeles v. Lyons,

Lujan Defenders of Wildlife,

Marchetti v. United States,

Mich. Ave. Assocs. v. Devine,

Mississippi State Democratic Party v. Barbour,

Mobile Republican Assembly v. United States

Moore v. City of East Cleveland,

Murphy v. Internal Revenue Serv.,

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp,

New York v. United States,

Olmstead v. United States,

Pennell v. City of San Jose,